1983-10-24

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 20, 1983 consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motions Nos. 41, 42, 43 and 46 (Mr. Benjamin), Motion No. 44 (Mr. McKnight) and Motion No. 45 (Mr. Mayer).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) had the floor at the adjournment of the House. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the opportunity to speak on this series of motions which to some extent give a pretty fair indication of the effect of 12 to 40 years of Liberal bureaucracy in that this Bill before the House is so badly drafted that a number of things must be changed to even make it palatable and understandable.
This series of motions deals with sanctions and awards which may be levied by the Administrator. As you mentioned, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) was the last speaker and he gave a very interesting series of Bills which he thought should be presented to the House. I could go on, Mr. Speaker, because I would like to add to those Bills Conservative Bill C-112, which is a Bill that says that if a patient loses his hand the Conservatives would treat the heart because the darn thing is pumping out all the blood. That is the kind of inadequacy which we see in this whole series of amendments.
The intent of Motion No. 41 is to give to the Administrator the authority to make sanctions against the railways but not against the Wheat Board and other agencies of the Government. It, along with Motion No. 42, should be in the Bill to give authority to the Administrator to do his work properly and not be bothered with fighting with other agencies within the Government. For instance, Clause 21(1 )(a) requires the Administrator to establish performance objectives. Motion No. 42, which stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), attempts to reduce the confusion which
has been built into the Bill by bureaucrats who have become sloppy and did not bother to take a good look at the effect of the amendments. This particular amendment is an attempt to get rid of some of the confusion which is manifest in the Bill by allowing one agency of the Government-the Administrator, who is defined as an agent in the Bill-to levy sanctions against another agency, that being the Canadian Wheat Board or the Canadian Grain Commission. It also attempts to strengthen a portion of the Railway Act.
Sanctions against the railways have been in the Railway Act for a great number of years. Unfortunately, the Canadian Transport Commission or the Government of Canada, the Cabinet, which has the power within the Railway Act to apply sanctions to the railways and force them to carry grain or whatever railways are built to do, has never used that power.
Motion No. 42 strengthens the Railway Act by giving the Administrator, this one-man agency, more power. He probably has more than he should but if he uses it well in forcing the railways to do their duty, it could be of some value. This amendment would allow the Administrator to have the sole responsibility for imposing sanctions on the railways. We recommend the amendment to both the Official Opposition and the Government as one way of assuring that we have the kind of control over the railways which, along with Motion No. 41, would guarantee performance. Since the Railway Act has not guaranteed performance although it has had the authority for many years, if we are to have an Administrator let us use him to develop the transportation of grain in such a way that it will not be affected by the dilatory railway.
Motion No. 43 deals with awards to system participants. It would eliminate the Wheat Board from the structure of a group that could receive awards because that particular idea of paying awards to a Government agency-again, one agency paying awards to another agency-does not have a great deal of logic to it. I suppose it could be considered to be incompetence on the part of the people who drafted the Bill. We suggest a change by taking out the railways as receivers of awards. They do not need awards. We have been giving the railways awards for the last 100 years and it has not improved their ability to do a good job.
Railways do not really need awards and the awards we have given them in the past have not produced good performance. We have given them rehabilitation funding, money for the rehabilitation of cars and rail lines. That can only be considered an award. Monetary awards have been given in the case of branch lines particularly, but the Government has never checked to see if the money was used for rehabilitation

October 24, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
of rail lines. What they did was take what little of the money was spent on the rehabilitation of that line and just added that money to their income.
That is the kind of award which the railways have been receiving and it has not made any difference in the quality of their service. A lot of awards in the form of hopper cars have also been given to the railways. The responsibility for the movement of grains belongs to the railways, according to the Railway Act and according to our understanding of why the railways are there. If one was driving a truck, for instance, one would expect to own the truck. One would not expect the Government to supply the truck even if one were moving Government goods. However, for the last number of years we have been supplying hopper cars and the railways have not been charged for that: they have been able to use those hopper cars rent free, so to speak. That must also be considered an award to the railways because they do not have to provide railway cars to move grain, as they did before 1950.
Motion No. 43, Mr. Speaker, also establishes the principle which Hon. Members have been speaking about for a number of weeks. The Wheat Board should not be tampered with. The second part of this amendment deals with the possibility of sanctions. Again, we feel that if sanctions were put in place they should not be levied against the Wheat Board, because any levy against the Wheat Board is a levy against the producer, and if we levy against the producer we are going to affect the cash flow of the producers. That is not the intent of this Bill. Consequently, we feel that this particular amendment should be allowed.


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members of this House are hearing more and more about the plan of the Government to hustle this Bill through all stages of debate by the end of this month. I would like to say at the outset that this will come back to haunt the Liberals for many years to come. The dismantling of the Crow rate will long be remembered on the Prairies. The Government, of course, will make much about the unwillingness of Hon. Members on this side of the House to join with it in its plans to scrap the Crow. It will continue to accuse us of being reactionary on the issue of grain transportation. It will continue to hold up before Canadians the hope of job creation from railway operation-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. With all due respect to the Hon. Member, this is report stage of a Bill. There are specific amendments before us and debate should be strictly relevant to the amendment being considered.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I am just making introductory comments; I intend to debate the amendment before us. I would like it recorded again that we in this Party offered to deal with those parts of the Bill which were beneficial. All the Government had to do was divide it into the three parts. We agreed to public investment in railway upgrading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, I invite him to speak to the amendments which are currently before the House.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, we have been debating amendments to this Bill which we believe would make it more like a Bill which would come from this Party. It would be more reflective of what is needed for western Canada. Of course, we would begin by retaining the current statutory freight rates.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member is not prepared to debate the amendments specifically before the House, the Chair will have no alternative but to recognize someone else.


Mr. Epp:: Next.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I invite him to speak to Motions Nos. 41 to 46 inclusive, grouped for debate at this point.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, if you would give me a chance I am coming to the amendments we are discussing.
This group of amendments, Mr. Speaker, deals with the authority of the Administrator of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee to set performance objectives and a system of sanctions and awards to enforce those objectives. We agree that performance objectives should be set by the committee, but what is missing in this legislation is a restriction of its authority to set those objectives only for the railways. As I pointed out the other day when I was commenting on Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 38, the problem with our grain delivery system is not that the producers cannot get the grain to the elevator in time or that the grain is held up unnecessarily in port; the problem is and has been for quite a while that the railways cannot seem to meet their obligations to move grain quickly and efficiently from the country elevators to port. They have been responsible for millions of dollars worth of prairie grain sitting in cars on sidings by country elevators when it should have been at the port terminals being loaded on to ships for export.
I have been told horror stories, Mr. Speaker, about railways leaving full cars sitting at country elevators for up to 90 days. No doubt about it, we need to set performance objectives for the railways and make sure they meet them. But why, Mr. Speaker, do we need to have the Senior Grain Transportation Committee set performance objectives for the Grain Commission or the Wheat Board? Why do we need another regulatory body overseeing the other regulatory bodies which are responsible to their own Ministers? I think the simple answer is that we do not. In fact, as I pointed out the other day, allowing the Administrator of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee to interfere in the operation of the Wheat Board will weaken the Board's ability to market western grain. The intent of Motion No. 41 is to limit that interference.
Motion No. 42, Mr. Speaker, recognizes the simple fact that the railways have been at the public trough for long enough
October 24, 1983

now. By all means, set performance objectives for them, and if they do not meet those objectives, impose sanctions. But why in heaven's name do we offer them rewards for meeting their performance objectives? They have been taking the Canadian public for a ride for too long now. Let's make this the end of the line for the railways' public gratuities. Already this Bill proposes to hand over to the railways some $650 million annually as a Crow subsidy. The Government will be investing billions in upgrading our grain delivery system, much to the delight, no doubt, of CN and CP. If that is not enough, add to that the billions of dollars provided over the years in subsidies, the provision of grain hopper cars and deferred income tax. No, Mr. Speaker, the railways are already being rewarded handsomely for a pretty poor record of meeting their commitment to move grain quickly and efficiently to port.
If this Bill is allowed to pass through the House as it is now written, the railways will be rewarded again by the elimination of the Crow rate. However, this time the reward will be coming out of the pockets of prairie farmers. As far as I am concerned, the railways have gotten enough. It is ludicrous even to consider establishing a system of awards to be applied to CN and CP simply for meeting their performance objectives and doing their job. As David Lewis said many, many years ago, it is time to stop. It is time we cracked down on these corporate welfare bums and on corporate welfare handouts.
I would like to close, Mr. Speaker, by dealing briefly with Motions Nos. 45 and 46. These motions are very similar. Both increase the maximum sanction for the railways to 20 per cent of the volume-related variable costs. However, our Motion No. 46 goes one step further. For that reason, I believe it is the motion that we should support.
In addition to the 20 per cent of volume-related variable costs, this motion would make the railways liable to sanctions equal to 100 per cent of the capital portion of line-related variable costs on grain dependent branch lines. This would simply take from the railways all of the reward money the Bill gives to them if they do not meet their performance objectives or, in other words, if they do not do their job and indeed obey the laws that they are currently required to obey under the Railway Act.
Taken together, I think these sanctions would present a sufficient incentive for the railways to live up to their obligation to transport grain which they have been so delinquent at living up to in the past. It is high time that the railways started doing their job.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a few words on the record dealing with the motions that are lumped together here, Motions Nos. 41 through 46 inclusive. I would first like to say that I disagree with the fact that the motions are lumped together. Although they are similar in some respects, I would like to debate each of these motions separately because they do have separate intent and they are separate motions. It is very hard to say what we would like to say about all of these motions in the ten
Western Grain Transportation Act
minutes allowed. There are six motions lumped together and we do not have adequate time to cover each and every one of them as we would like to.
I would say initially, Mr. Speaker, that under Bill C-155 the railways have been given a guaranteed annual income. They are guaranteed a return of 20 per cent on their investment and they will either drain that out of the pockets of the farmers of Canada or, if that amount is more than the farmers can bear, they will drain that guaranteed annual income from the pockets of the taxpayers of Canada through the Government of the country. I do not know of any farmer in my riding who would not be very happy to have a guaranteed annual return on his or her investment of 20 per cent. Things like that must be rectified.
The guaranteed annual income to the railways is not really tied to any performance indicators. If there are to be performance indicators, they should be set out in Bill C-155. In terms of the motions that are before us now, it would be very appropriate to have performance indicators spelled out within some sections of the Bill.
The entire system may be well managed, but if the railway companies do not perform and if performance indicators are not included and we cannot tell whether or not they have been performing, they should not have a guaranteed return on their investment of some 20 per cent. I will grant that it is not always the railway companies that are at fault. There are some situations in which the railway companies have performed very well. That usually happens on the main lines. The rail companies hardly ever seem to perform well on the branch lines.
The performance indicators, Mr. Speaker, should not only be tied in to the hauling of grain at a certain rate or with a certain turnaround time but should also take into account the fact that the rail companies have been responsible, or should have been responsible, for keeping the rail lines in an adequate condition so that they can be utilized to the fullest possible extent. This certainly is not the case. Performance indicators should be tied into the upgrading of the rail system.
I can think of situations where there is a need for hopper cars at delivery points with large grain storage capacities and yet there are only 85-pound steel tracks going into those places. The provincial Governments, the federal Government and the Canadian Wheat Board actually bought the grain hopper cars that the railway companies did not buy. Those cars should be able to go into delivery points where they are needed and be fully loaded and hauled back out. Of course, if there are only 85-pound steel tracks there, we all know that a box car can only be loaded one-third full and must be hauled out of that delivery point. That is a very inefficient kind of system.
I think that efficiency should be tied in to the performance indicators that the railway companies should be compelled to honour. Under the Act by which the railway companies operate, they are responsible for providing that service. They have received more than adequate compensation over the years for providing that service, either through land, cash grants, rolling stock or money to upgrade the rail systems. The railway

October 24, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act companies have not upgraded the system. They have let it waste away. Some of the tracks are in very poor condition. The railway companies have taken the money that should have been used for upgrading the rail system and spent it on numerous other things that have nothing to do with grain transportation.
That brings me to another point I wish to discuss, Mr. Speaker. Many things that are included in Bill C-155 should be debated separately. Bill C-155 has become known through the media to many farmers in western Canada as the Crow Bill. However, we know that the Bill deals with more than the statutory rate that is tied to the movement of grain. The Bill also deals with the upgrading of the rail transportation system and the leasing of the Dominion coal blocks. If the Bill were to be split into these three very separate issues as has been requested by Members of the New Democratic Party, Motions Nos. 41 through 46 would in fact fall under the section that would deal with the upgrading and improvements to the rail transportation system because the network that we presently have sometimes operates efficiently along main lines but very seldom operates with any degree of efficiency on branch lines.
As I have already said, while the cars may belong to the railway company and it can move them in, it is sometimes unable to move fully loaded cars out because of the condition of the tracks. Of course, track condition is a responsibility of the railway companies which should be taken into account in their performance. There is no way they should be allowed a guaranteed annual income of 20 per cent on their investment if they do not perform the movement of grain in the best interests of the producers. We have already heard about the Administrator's acting in the best interests of the producers for such things as trucking grain from certain delivery points. A conflict of interest may well arise if rail line maintenance is not tied into the performance indicators for the railways, because if they do not upgrade the rail lines and truck the grain instead, they would effectively kill that line and would have reason to go to the Canadian Transport Commission and ask for the abandonment of that rail line. Therefore I believe the branch lines are an integral part of the performance indicators of the railroads to justify their guaranteed annual income which is to be provided through this legislation.
Motions Nos. 41 through 46 deal with the power which is given to the Administrator, power which no individual should have. As I understand it, the Government wants to make the Administrator the sole person to solve all the problems of grain transportation. That person would be responsible to the Cabinet. These motions attempt to have the Government consider the fact that the Administrator should not have the power of sanctions and other means over the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a producer organization. The Wheat Board is a farmers' organization which performs in the best interests of producers in western Canada. Instead, the Administrator should be concerned with operating a more efficient grain transportation system in the best interests of the producers. We maintain that this should not be done by abandoning
branch lines, trucking grain and having power over the Wheat Board.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair hesitates to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to him has expired. He needs the unanimous consent of the House to continue. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, there are presently six motions before the House. All of them seek to amend Clause 21 of Bill C-155. I consider those motions very important because Clause 21 of the Bill gives great discretionary power to the Governor in Council. In other words, that discretion is given to the Minister in charge of administering Bill C-155.
I would ask all Members of the Government to study Clause 21 of the Bill very closely. I say this because, having sat in this Parliament with my seatmate from Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) for some 15 years, we have seen Bills passed through the House of Commons, some of which we have supported and others which we have opposed. We have often seen the intent of legislation change quite drastically as a result of the regulations that are drafted by the Government itself or by the particular philosophy of the Minister in charge of a Bill. The reason for that is that a lot of discretionary power is given to the Minister in charge of a particular piece of legislation. He or she may interpret a Bill in any number of ways.
The six amendments in question today amend Clause 21 which gives the Minister tremendous discretionary powers regarding sanctions and awards to the participants in the grain handling system. Clause 21 states that the Governor in Council may, by regulation, at any time after the completion of the review that the Minister is required to carry out under Section 59, take a number of steps which are listed in that clause. This includes awards and sanctions as are detailed in Clause 21 (b)(i) and Clause 21(b)(ii) to be applied to the system participants. It goes on to talk about more regulations. Clause 21(3) states that the Governor in Council may make regulations establishing a system of arbitration to resolve disputes concerning awards or sanctions that are to be applied according to this legislation.
This clause gives tremendous discretionary power to any Minister. I say to my Liberal friends across the aisle that the time will eventually come, perhaps very soon, when they are not in Government and another Minister will be sitting across the way. I say to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) that the time may come when there will be a Minister other than one from his Government in charge of administering Bill C-155. That Member may then experience the same kind of frustration over the bureaucracy and lack of freedom of information one finds in the executive council in our country today. At that time he may wish that some amendments were passed to curtail the power of the Minister with respect to awards and sanctions on the grain handling system.
October 24, 1983

That is the thrust of the amendments that are before the House this morning. Our amendments and those moved by the Conservative Party attempt to limit the power that the Minister will be given through Orders in Council to draft regulations regarding sanctions in the grain handling system.
1 repeat that I seriously recommend to Government Members that they take a very serious look at Clause 21. If they did so I am sure they would be very interested in supporting some of these amendments in the name of democracy and fairness.
Let me refer specifically to Motion No. 41 which was moved by the Hon. Member for Regina West. That motion points out once again that we are dealing with a transportation bill and it should be treated as such. Motion No. 41 refers to the power to impose sanctions and we say that this power over the Canadian Wheat Board and the grain companies should not exist in this Bill. The Canadian Wheat Board is responsible to the farmers of this country and we believe that the Administrator and the Minister in charge of the Bill should not have the power to impose sanctions on the Canadian Wheat Board.
In reality, the sales that are made by the Canadian Wheat Board will determine grain transportation objectives. Therefore the Canadian Wheat Board, as the farmers' agency, should be able to allocate the cars to where it knows how much and what kind of grain is needed. I maintain that the Wheat Board and not the Administrator of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee should have that power.
The Hon. Member for Regina West, who has done a very commendable job on this Bill before the House, also moved Motion No. 42. That motion seeks to limit the application of sanctions to the railways for failure to meet performance objectives. There are a number of reasons why I would like to recommend this motion to the House. This part of the legislation would give the Administrator power to impose sanctions on the Canadian Wheat Board. We find it very absurd for one agency of the federal Government to be able to impose sanctions on another agency of the federal Government. In other words, the Minister in charge of this legislation can be given the power to impose sanctions on the Wheat Board, which is under the authority of Senator Argue in the other place. I do not believe it should operate in this way and the farmers of western Canada believe it should not operate in this way.
In the past it is only the railways which have consistently failed to meet performance requirements. I believe the sanctions need only apply to the railroads. The farmers for whom the Canadian Wheat Board is working should not have sanctions imposed upon them.
Motion No. 43 is also in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West. Once again it talks about the possibility of sanctions and awards being removed when it comes to the Canadian Wheat Board. The appropriate place for that amendment, as indicated in Motion No. 43, is once again in Clause 21. I do not want to repeat the arguments. We have said many times that sanctions must not apply to the Canadian Wheat Board, to grain companies, to the Wheat Pool and the
Western Grain Transportation Act
like; they should apply to the railways. There are many good reasons why that should occur.
In this collection of amendments there is co-operation between our Party and our friends in the Conservative Party. Indeed, Motion No. 44 is moved by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). I believe the Hon. Member is on his way back from his riding. I am sure he would be interested in knowing that his amendment moves in a similar direction to the one about which we are speaking today.


Mr. McDermid:: He is here.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I hear someone say he is here. I knew that if he was not he would certainly be back very soon. He made the best argument as to why his amendment should be carried. [Translation]
On September 12, the Member from Saskatchewan said in Committee, and I quote:
I think the intent is similar to that of Mr. Benjamin. There is no way 1 can see any agency of the Crown, or any minister, applying a sanction through the Canadian Wheat Board or the Canadian Grain Commission that would basically affect producers, who are the main participants, or the sole participants, within the Canadian Wheat Board, or sanction the companies to which they belong and, through that, sanction producers, so the sanctions to be applied would be non-pecuniary. I do not know the definition of that, but I strongly suspect, Mr. Chairman, that most sanctions applied would have ramifications that would affect producers, either through depriving them of the ability to deliver their products or depriving them of the ability to have their products sold.

And this is the end of the quotation:

Therefore, my understanding of non-pecuniary would be that the sanctions would meet the intent that Mr. Benjamin meant by the inclusion of the words. We have seen fit to move it by not being specific but by using the word "non-pecuniary" and seeing how that would pass down.

I think he sums up the arguments for his motion in his own words. The other motion before the House-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: May I have one or two minutes within which to wind up my speech?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to continue?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to continue.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) that in many ways this is an important group of

October 24, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act amendments. One of them happens to be in my name, and I would like to speak to it specifically.


An Hon. Member:: That is why it is important.


Charles James Mayer: Perhaps it is important because it is in my name, but I do not want to pursue that very far. Our sole purpose throughout this whole discussion-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member but he moved Motion No. 45. According to the rules he is presumed to have spoken. I would like to confer with the Table.
The Hon. Member has the floor.


Charles James Mayer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Very simply put, our sole purpose throughout the discussion of the amendments to the changes the Government is proposing to the Crow rate has been to protect the interests of producers. When we talk about protecting their interests, one of their interests is costs. In that regard we have advanced the notion or the proposal of a three-year freeze on the rate charged to producers. The other area is that of guaranteeing service by the railways when it comes time for producers to move grain. In that regard Section 262 of the Railway Act protects producers, in fact all shippers, so that the railways are obligated to provide certain kinds of service.
This particular piece of legislation allows for another way that producers can be guaranteed protection. According to the Bill as drafted, a large amount of money will go to the railways each year. One way to put pressure on the railways to provide service is to take some of that money and hold it back, not for foolish or capricious reasons, but for reasons related to the performance of railways in the movement of grain. Motion No. 45 would amend Clause 21(2), which reads:
The sanctions referred to in subparagraph (l)(b)(ii) shall, in respect of any railway company, consist of a reduction in the government payment to the railway company under Part III, as prescribed by regulations made by the Governor in Council, not exceeding an amount that, in the opinion of the Commission, is equal to 10 per cent of the volume-related variable costs of the railway company.
To put that in perspective, about 80 per cent of the total amount of money the railways say they need to move grain is comprised of volume-related variable costs. If we take 10 per cent of 80 per cent, it means we are holding back 8 per cent of the Government money which will go to the railways. Let me emphasize that 8 per cent is not the amount which will be held back. It is a maximum, it is a variable. It is up to 8 per cent.
Motion No. 45 simply indicates that the Governor in Council should be in a position to hold back more. We are suggesting 20 per cent. Twenty per cent of 80 per cent is 16 per cent. That is not a large amount of money compared to the total. It is not an absolute, it is a maximum.
Just to give some figures, in 1983-84, if we use the 10 per cent figure, it would be $65 million out of total railway revenue of $790 million. In 1984-85, according to the figures provided by the Department, it would be $71 million out of $893 million. In 1985-86 it would be $75 million out of $987
million. Motion No. 45 simply suggests that that amount be doubled so that the railways know the Government is serious about seeing that they live up to their performance objectives.
In many ways it makes sense because producers do not have the option of receiving any of that Government money themselves. It all goes to the railways. If there was a provision in the Bill that some of the money would go to producers, they would then be in a position themselves to judge whether the railways were providing service. If the railways were not providing service and they had the option of using trucks to move some of their grain to a feed mill or crushing plant, they could do that. But when all the money the Government is to put up-and it is substantial, we give the Government credit for that-goes to the railways, surely there should be as many teeth in the Bill as possible to ensure that the railways perform. The amendment suggests that 8 per cent of the total amount of money is not enough and that 16 per cent would be more appropriate.
Let me put it further into perspective. As the Bill is written, volume-related variable costs will go down. There is a provision in the Bill that the railways be allowed a contribution to what is called their constant costs. As constant costs become a larger and larger proportion of the total amount of money that the railways will get from the Government, the actual percentage that is volume-related variable costs will decline. Over a period of time, the 8 per cent that the Government is suggesting in the Bill as it is written at report stage will decline. Over time the contribution to constant costs that the railways will be allowed to charge will amount to about 20 per cent. This becomes rather involved statistically and I am not sure it is worth elaborating. The point is that over time this 10 per cent figure will fall. It is now only 8 per cent and over time it will fall to less than 8 per cent.
If the Government is really serious about providing the producers of this country with some guarantees that the railways will in fact perform, there should be nothing wrong with doubling this holdback, which is all it can be termed, from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. Initially, the Bill at second reading was written to hold back 40 per cent of the^volume-related costs. Forty per cent of 20 per cent would only amount to 8 per cent of the total costs. As it is written now, it is raised to 10 per cent. A more reasonable proposition would be that it be doubled.
I am making these arguments to try and convince Government Members, but I do not know whether many of them are listening. Let me emphasize that the 20 per cent holdback is not a maximum. We are not saying that if the railway does not perform anything that does not come up to standard as judged by the CTC or the Governor in Council, the total amount should be held back. We are saying that the maximum should be raised. This was referred to by the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). Subclause (3) reads:
October 24, 1983

Where a scheme that provides for awards or sanctions or both has been implemented under subsection (1), the Governor in Council may make regulations-
It does not say "shall penalize" for the full 10 per cent or, as I am suggesting in this amendment, 20 per cent. It states:
-may make regulations establishing a system of arbitration to resolve disputes concerning awards or sanctions or both applied under the scheme in accordance with any procedures prescribed by the regulations.
If there is any faltering as far as performance is concerned, it does not say that the railways shall be penalized a full 20 per cent. All we are doing is raising the maximum. It does not mean that if there is a holdback or penalty it should be taken away permanently. As I interpret it, it means that the Governor in Council should be in a position to hold back certain amounts of money for a period of time until the railways perform. If the Government is really serious about seeing that the railways perform, given the fact that they are going to get many many hundreds of millions of dollars from the Government, the Government should be willing to see that there are some teeth in this Act in order that the railways do perform.
Let me point out another area of concern. In press releases last spring, both railways pointed out that because of the decline in the economy and the falling volumes that they were shipping, they may or may not invest the kind of moneys that they had initially talked about in the spring. Here we have an indication from the railways, and it makes sense because volumes are down, that they may not invest.
I will say this again so that Government Members in fact understand what Motion 45 states. We are saying that the Government should have as many teeth as possible to look after producers. When the producers do not receive the money themselves, they have to rely on the railways and whatever pressure the Government can put on the railways to perform. We think that increasing the amount of the penalty or holdback would serve as an inducement.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on Motions Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46. It appears that these sections of the Bill are designed to protect the producers. That is certainly a worthy objective. These amendments deal with sanctions or penalties which may be imposed or enacted.
1 have difficulty following the argument that one segment of all those concerned is fully responsible for many of our problems. Certainly the railways play an important part, but there are other segments which also play an important part in transportation, such as the Wheat Board, the pools, the labour unions, the Canadian Transport Commission and the Grain Commission. All of them have their place.
Under this Act, the Administrator will be given certain authority. Some people, such as the Members of the NDP, think that the Administrator is being given too much authority. Frankly, I do not think he is being given enough authority. I would like to see it increased rather than decreased.
My experience with the abandonment of rail lines, for example, has not been a happy one. I was very unhappy with
Western Grain Transportation Act
the decisions of the Canadian Transport Commission. 1 tried to get information pertaining to the books of CPR and CNR. Not only was I thwarted by the railways, which did not want to reveal what was in their books, but by the CTC. In other words, the producers are being opposed by the very bodies that should be protecting them.
I want to give an illustration of that. It deals with penalties and sanctions. In the East Coulee coal mines, there are still more than a million tonnes of coal to be mined. A few years ago, the Canadian National Railway was persuaded to build a line from Rosedale to East Coulee, a distance of about eight miles. There were five coal mines there at the time. They paid for that rail line. When it reached the point where the coal mines could not compete with oil, the mines were closed. They stopped operating. The rail line and the elevator in East Coulee sat there. The CNR and CPR asked for the right to close the line. First, the Alberta Wheat Pool sold the elevator. The railways then said they did not need the line any longer. The railway companies produced a lot of figures at the hearings to indicate that the line was costing them money. Among other things, it showed depreciation on the line.
I knew that in fact the railways had put no money into that line for several years. However, they showed a large sum of money for depreciation. At the hearing, I asked the railways to show me the amounts of depreciation for each year since the railway was built. Counsel for the CPR said that I was not entitled to that information. I wanted to know why. After all, that was one of the factors upon which they were closing the line. CP said that it would not give me the information. One of the Commissioners of the CTC said that he believed I had the right to have the information. I almost fell over when he said that, but he did state that he believed I had the right to it. A very able lawyer in the City of Drumheller, Mr. Robert Ross, Q.C., supported me in the stand and stated: "Yes, he is entitled to that information. We are all entitled to it". The Commissioner then said to the railway representatives: "You supply the Member with that information".
I waited for weeks and for months and then I went back to the CTC and wanted to know why I was not getting the information that the CPR had been ordered to give to me. By that time the CTC had changed its mind and said: "We do not think you are entitled to that information".
I ask Hon. Members of this House, are the books of one of the segments going to be kept in such a way that the rest of us are not going to be permitted to see what is in the books? Why am I not entitled to see what the railway has been charging for depreciation on that line since its inception? I will warrant you, Mr. Speaker, that they have paid for that line time and time again through depreciation alone, but they will not reveal any figures.
I think we need an Administrator who is able to say: "We will look after the producer. We will look after the people. We want that information". If the railway is not giving the facts and refuses to give the facts, then there should be heavy

October 24, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act sanctions imposed against them. I would like to see a severe penalty imposed on both the CNR and the CPR when they "cook" their figures in their books. That is what they are doing; they are "cooking" the figures.
In navigation school where we were learning how to find the location of a plane, we would take a shot on the sun, we would take a shot on a station, and we would build a little triangle to find exactly where we were going to be in ten minutes. At night we would take a shot on a couple of stars and the moon, and we would get our little triangle to find out where we are so that we can tell the pilot, "This is where we are now. "Turn 180 degrees or 70 degrees" whatever way we wanted him to go. Some people at navigation school and those who trained as navigators will know that we had to shoot so many shots on the stars and the moon and the sun. But some "cooked" their books; they simply "cooked" their shots, and of course many of those were washed out. What good would they be to a crew up in the air when they did not know where they were or if they did not know how to take a shot on whatever is available.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The information being relayed by the Hon. Member is of particular interest to the occupant of the chair, but I am having a little difficulty relating it to the amendments before us.


Gordon Edward Taylor: From now on you will not, Mr. Speaker. I am just suggesting that that is exactly what the railway is doing; they are "cooking" their books and they do not want to reveal it. They will not put it out to the light of day so we can see how much they have charged for depreciation. That is only one segment. There should be penalty imposed and it should be a heavy penalty.
I also agree that when we start enacting penalties we should make sure that the person who is responsible pays them. Too often it is passed on to the producer who pays it in the end. 1 do not agree with that at all. As the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) said the other day, when we impose penalties let the railways pay it out of their own profits and not charge it back to the producer. Let them not put a pecuniary penalty on the Wheat Board because that takes money out of the pockets of the producers. The motions made by this Party and the stand we are taking on these amendments is to protect and be fair to the producer. That will be a big change in this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) has already spoken.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I know I have already spoken, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask a question of the Hon. Member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is not permitted under the rules. At this point the Hon. Member's time has expired and we would need the unanimous consent of the House to ask questions. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
According to the Chair, Motions Nos. 41 to 46 inclusive have been grouped for debate but at this stage they are to be voted upon separately.
The Question is on Motion No. 41. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79 (11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 42. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 43. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 44. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
October 24, 1983

The question is on Motion No. 45. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 46. All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
As indicated previously by Madam Speaker, Motions No. 47, No. 48 and 49 will be grouped for debate. Motion No. 47 will be voted upon separately. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 48 would dispose of Motion No. 49; a negative vote on Motion No. 48 would require the question to be put on Motion No. 49.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moved:: Motion No. 47
That Bill C-l 55 be amended in Clause 22 by striking out line 2 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"fifteen Senators or fifteen Members of the".


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville) moved:: Motion No. 48
That Bill C-l55 be amended in Clause 25 by deleting lines 10 to 17 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"debated for not more than three sitting days and at the expiration of the three sitting days the Speaker shall forthwith without further debate or amendment put every question necessary for the disposition of the motion."


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 49
That Bill C-l55 be amended in Clause 25 by striking out lines 10 to 17 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"debated and on the conclusion of the debate the Speaker shall forthwith put every question necessary for the disposition of the motion."


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in committee the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) and some of my colleagues in the Conservative Party endeavored to have changes made in those parts of Clause 22 and Clause 25 which
Western Grain Transportation Act
specified the number of Senators or Members of the House of Commons who would need to sign a statement in writing requesting referral of the regulations put forward by the Grain Transportation Administrator to the appropriate committee of the House and, further, that when the committee had reported back, the report could be debated for three sitting days as proposed by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) or, as I propose, until debate is concluded.
In Motion No. 47 we endeavored to provide equality with Senators in terms of the number of Members required to sign a request to the Speaker that a regulation be referred to the appropriate standing committee. I can understand why they did not want 30 Senators and 30 MPs as it would be tough enough to find even 15 Senators to sign a piece of paper. We do not object to 15 Senators but we think only the same number of Members of the House of Commons should be required to sign a submission in writing to the Chair that a regulation be referred to the appropriate standing committee of the House.
As was the case with the previous group of amendments and as was mentioned by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), this legislation is another VIA Rail set-up. The Governor in Council, the Minister, or the Grain Transportation Administrator can do anything they want. When it comes to regulations regarding awards and sanctions, regulations regarding the allocation of railway cars, regulations that could affect the quota system or the block system or regulations that could discriminate against a system participant unfairly or discrminate in favour of a system participant unfairly, it surely requires some detailed attention by the House of Commons. The regulations will be contentious and they are to be submitted to the House by the Minister within five days. There will probably never be a request that those that are minor or somewhat innocuous be referred to the appropriate standing committee for debate.
It can be safely assumed, however, that there will be many regulations of a very serious and complex nature that cannot be grasped quickly and so will require the attention of Members both in the standing committee and in the House. We submit that it is only fair that an equivalent number of Members of Parliament as members of the other place can make a request in writing.
I will not go into any criticism of members of the other place except to say that it seems to me and to this Party that Members of the House of Commons have the greatest responsibility to go into these matters because every day they have to face the people who sent them here and give an accounting of what they are doing. Certainly Members from western Canada will be called upon to explain the regulations put forward by the Minister if this legislation should ever pass.
With regard to Motion No. 48, the Bill asks for a one-hour debate consisting of ten-minute speeches in the House. We can all see of course that some complicated, serious and important regulations will need more than one hour of debate. The limit of one hour of debate with ten-minute speeches is a sort of legislated closure-it legislates time allocation in advance. I

October 24, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act thought that the proper place for that was in the Standing Orders of the Elouse of Commons and not in a piece of legislation. The three sitting days proposed by the Hon. Member for Vegreville is reasonable; it is not extreme and often three sitting days may not be required.
Motion No. 49 standing in my name leaves the matter open. It may require debate for a few hours, for a whole day, for two days, three days or even five days, although I cannot see it going beyond that. If there is a collection of regulations, some of which Members want an opportunity to debate, one hour on each is totally inadequate. As I submitted earlier, on a minor regulation there would probably be no request in writing that it be referred to committee. I believe that should be done automatically. Where there are contentious regulations, and when those committees report back to the House, the opportunity should be there for the House to debate those regulations fully. It will be debating a report of the committee, but that report will contain all the regulations which the committee dealt with. Some of the more complex regulations will require individual attention, certainly for more than an hour.
.We believe this time allocation in advance with respect to an area such as this is totally inappropriate and we would urge that the Government reconsider and accept our Motion No. 47. It is not a motion which is going to do any violence to the legislation which the Government wants passed. It certainly would be more fair to Hon. Members of the House of Commons that we be treated equally in the matter of numbers with the other place.
Secondly, the Government must surely agree that limiting debate on such regulations to one hour is unfair. There might be the odd minor regulation for which an hour would be sufficient; indeed, an hour might not even be used up. However, there will be other regulations, Mr. Speaker, which will require lengthy debate, because when those regulations are being dealt with by a standing committee of the House, there will be representations from one or even all of the system participants affected under the legislation. There would be representations from governmental bodies which are not, strictly speaking, a system participant but are affected by the regulations. If a regulation allowing some kind of variable rate system in a specific area jeopardizes the existence of some branch lines, you can be certain, Mr. Speaker, that the municipalities in that area will want to be heard and the provincial Government will want to be heard. They can be heard before the committee if the committee will agree to call witnesses, if the committee is authorized to call witnesses, and the committee should be authorized to do so. However, once that stage has been completed, then the House requires more than an hour on those kinds of contentious regulations in order to debate their efficacy and whether or not they should be changed or amended. The House should be able to decide this and certainly it should have more than an hour to deal with a piece of legislation which is of major importance to western Canada.
I hope, Sir, that the Government will agree to accept these motions. It is agrees to accept Motions Nos. 47 and 48, for example, I am sure the debate can be relatively short. This would help. 1 hope that the Minister will carry through on his first meeting before the committee with his expressed desire to co-operate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker;: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to him has expired. The Hon. Member may continue with unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and to commend him on his foresight in proposing the adoption of this amendment to the House. I hope Government Members opposite will pay attention to this particular amendment because I believe it is crucial to the future of grain transportation and other product transportation in western Canada.
It is wise, I believe, to track through this entire piece of legislation to see what brings us to this particular amendment. What we have before us is a piece of legislation which is trying to help Canadians look into the future to see how best to regulate and encourage the railway system to become more effective and efficient, and to enable Canada as a nation to better our capacity to deliver our export products on time and at a reasonable price.
Mixed in with that, Mr. Speaker, is the notion that a Cabinet of this House of Commons shall decide regulatory matters. Built into the proposed law, Mr. Speaker, is a principle whereby 10 per cent of the Members of this House of Commons can petition the House to have a one-hour debate on a particular regulation. Is a one-hour debate reasonable, Mr. Speaker? I suggest that it is the firmly held view of Members of the Conservative Party of Canada and Hon. Members of this House that a one-hour debate is simply not reasonable. We are not dealing here with something which is simple to discuss, nor are we dealing with regulations which will have very little impact on the lives of Canadians. We are dealing with regulations which will have an enormous impact on the lives of Canadians, particularly those in western Canada.
If one looks at the current constitution of the federal Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, it is wise to note, I believe, that there is not a single elected Member west of the Manitoba border. There is only one elected Member from the Province of Manitoba. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there is simply the one voice of one Member in the Cabinet of Canada who is accountable to the electors of western Canada. That Hon. Member is city born and, perhaps, more attuned to eastern Canada. With respect to his past performance over four years, it is hard for me to distinguish him from someone who was born and raised in the City of Toronto in terms of his attitude.
October 24, 1983

Is it reasonable, Mr. Speaker, for that very, very busy group of people who constitute the Cabinet of Canada, those 37 individuals of whom only one is accountable to the voters of western Canada, to make decisions which so profoundly affect the lives of western Canadians? Is it reasonable to provide in this piece of legislation the possibility for only one hour of debate in this Chamber on a regulation which might have the impact of bankrupting 100 per cent of the agricultural producers in western Canada, or 2 per cent, or 10 per cent, or 50 per cent? The only protection which those producers in western Canada would have through their elected representatives is the possibility of a one-hour debate in this Chamber. We know, Mr. Speaker, what happens to one-hour debates in this Chamber. The Government uses its majority to use up 30 minutes of the 60 minutes and we are left with the possibility of only 30 minutes worth of time for the elected representatives from western Canada to be heard about a regulation which has the potential to make life very difficult for producers.
I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Cabinet of Canada would promulgate a regulation of that kind if it had knowledge of the potential impacts of that regulation. However, I do suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that given the busy nature of Cabinet Ministers and the fact that we will occasionally have Parliaments which are heavily weighted to other regions of the country, where there is only one elected voice from western Canada sitting in the Cabinet, the odds of that Cabinet inadvertently making a decision which would have a profound, long-term, negative impact on the economy of western Canada are very, very high.
It is a wise Government, Mr. Speaker, and it would be a wise group of Government backbenchers, which would look closely at Motion No. 48. It protects the Government against itself. It protects a busy group of Cabinet Ministers from making a tragic mistake in regulations which would cause them considerable grief over time because it would cause large numbers of Canadians considerable grief over time.
What we are saying to the Government, Mr. Speaker, is that when 10 per cent of the Members of this Chamber petition this House to debate a proposed regulation, then give the elected representatives an adequate amount of time to represent their constituents and inform the Government and Cabinet about the potential negative impact of any proposed regulation on the economy and the farmers of western Canada.
The only reason 1 can see for the Government insisting on the one-hour limit is stubbornness, a declaration to the Canadian people that the Government and Cabinet of Canada is not willing to learn about the potential impact of a proposed regulation. Why else would the Government insist on restricting Opposition voices to 30 minutes on an issue which might involve hundreds of millions of dollars and affect hundreds of thousands of Canadians? These regulations could affect Canadians' lifestyle today and their future retirement. Surely those kinds of very important considerations deserve up to
Western Grain Transportation Act three days of the time of this Chamber solely for the purpose of allowing elected representatives to bring to the attention of the Government that by supporting a particular regulation at a particular point in time the Government is in danger of making a tragic mistake.
Thirty minutes or even 60 minutes is not sufficient time to deal with the kinds of complex issues existing in Bill C-155 and the regulatory powers therein. Three days is not a great deal of time but in our view it would be sufficient. The Government would be free to make its mistake but it would do so with knowledge rather than with ignorance. I urge Members opposite to support the Hon. Member for Vegreville and vote yes for the adoption of the amendment under Motion No. 48.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly to Motion No. 48 and in so doing, since the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) talked about the prospects of several regulations being debated as a group, I thought it should be pointed out that Clause 24(1) of the Bill provides:
A regulation made under subsection 21(1) shall be laid before each House of Parliament within fifteen sitting days after it is made.
(2) Within five sitting days after a regulation referred to in Subsection (1) is laid before either House of Parliament, a motion to the effect that the regulation be confirmed, signed by a Minister of the Crown, shall be filed with the Speaker.
The word "shall" was incorporated in the committee hearings. Then we get into Clause 25(1) which provides:
A motion filed under section 24 shall be taken up and considered by the Senate or House of Commons, as the case may be, within five sitting days after the filing of the motion.
Then this is where Motion No. 48 standing under my name comes into effect. Clause 25(2) provides:
A motion taken up and considered in accordance with Subsection (1) shall be debated without interruption for not more than one hour, during which time no Senator or Member may speak for more than ten minutes-
I think when the Hon. Member for Regina West was speaking to this group of motions he indicated that this motion was reasonable. 1 would have to agree with him. I think it is a fair compromise. His argument for the open-endedness of this particular provision is that his motion would not provide any time limit. In general I agree with that, but we are really not dealing with legislation here, we are dealing with a regulation. The provision in this Bill for the possible debate of a regulation is something not often found in legislation. So it is a step in the right direction.
While I have no argument with the hon. Member's Motion No. 49, I thought that because we were dealing here with a specific regulation, not a group of regulations, three days was certainly a lot better than one hour. I think the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) elaborated on that very well.
In this Bill putting a great deal of latitude and discretionary power in the hands of a number of people, particularly the Administrator and others charged with the responsibility of administering the grain handling and transportation system. In the course of our deliberations we tried to incorporate as many of the players as possible, particularly the producer; but the

October 24, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
bottom line is that sooner or later regulations will have to be made and this provision is, in principle, a commendable check and balance which I certainly support and agree with. However, having said that, the Government certainly should provide sufficient latitude to do the job well.
In my humble opinion, to debate a controversial regulation in one hour certainly does not fit the Bill. My view is that non-controversial regulations would naturally not be brought before the House for debate; but clearly if one is important enough to be brought before either House for debate, there should be sufficient latitude and provision for debate to take place in full. Perhaps three days is not enough, but it is a happy compromise and, I think, reasonable. So I hope Government Members seriously look at Motion No. 48. It goes some way in alleviating some of the concerns which could crop up, and I concur wholeheartedly with the comments made by my colleague from Calgary West. As one who is not happy with any kind of allocation or predetermined time limit, I think we have gone some way in meeting an objective of fairness and reasonableness and I commend Motion No. 48 to the House for support.

[ Translation]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to designate tomorrow as an Opposition day, this as usual being subject to change.

I would like to designate tomorrow as an Opposition day, this, as usual, being subject to change.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motions Nos. 47 and 49 (Mr. Benjamin) and Motion No. 48 (Mr. Mazankowski).
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to shed some light on the issue that is before us today, Bill C-155 and its various proposed amendments. In order to shed some light on this issue, I propose to read some brief quotations from that Canadian lady poet of great renown, Pauline Johnson.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, I hope these quotations are relevant to the amendments before the House.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, they are not only very relevant but they are also very brief and read as follows:
What saw you in your flight to day.
Crows, awinging your homeward way?
Went you far in carrion quest,
Crows, that worry the sunless west?
Now, Sir, I shall read the final stanza that deals specifically with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) and his Liberal cabinet colleagues:
Thieves and villains, you shameless things!
Black your record as black your wings.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that these three motions have been grouped for debate because they all pertain to regulations regarding performance objectives and awards and sanctions. I believe that what we have just heard demonstrates why specific time limits have been put in this Bill. It demonstrates why the one-day debate-


An Hon. Member:: One hour.


Jesse Philip Flis: It demonstrates why there is a one-hour debate on the Bill rather than a three-day debate.
Let me turn to some of the comments made by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) dealing with his Motion No. 47. He seems to be very concerned about the requirement for 30 Members giving notice. He wants to reduce this to 15 Members. I do not know what his concern is unless it is that after the next election his Party will not have 30 Members in the House, but will only have 15. We do not have that concern, Mr. Speaker.
When we are asking for 15 Senators out of 100 to give notice, it mean only 15 per cent of the Senators must give notice. I think we should keep the number of Members of the House involved at about the same percentage. We are dealing with about 10 per cent of the Members or more when 30 Members give notice, versus 5 per cent when 15 would give notice. I do not think that 5 per cent of the Members of the House should get up and filibuster as they are now, Mr. Speaker. That is what this motion is trying to prevent. It is trying to prevent a minority group from getting up in the House and filibustering and wasting 12 sitting days of the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary would like to correct an earlier comment that he made. He may have inadvertently said that this provision allows for a one-day debate when in fact it allows for a one-hour debate.
October 24, 1983


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I purposely said one day to see if Hon. Members opposite are listening. I am very pleased to see that they are listening.
Next, Mr. Speaker, I would like to rebut some of the comments made by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). The Hon. Member for Calgary West offended all of the parliamentary standing committees of the House of Commons when he spoke, because what he failed to realize was that these suggested regulations would be debated for 30 days in committee. He went on and on about how there is only one representative in Cabinet. Well, what he is saying is that he is incompetent and that the representatives from the West cannot represent the wishes of their constituents in the committee. If he was doing his job, Mr. Speaker, surely he could represent the wishes of his constituents in 30 days.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary is implying that Cabinet members sit in on committee.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that Cabinet members like the Minister can be called before the committee, as was done in the debate on Bill C-155. I wish the Hon. Member would learn his parliamentary procedures, Mr. Speaker.
We feel that after debating something for 30 days in committee, we really do not need more than one hour in the House to pass what the committee approves. If there is great dispute within committee, surely it will not be resolved in three days in the House as suggested by the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). Again, Mr. Speaker, we on this side do not see the need for Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49, and we will be voting against them.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being afforded the opportunity to speak on Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49 because these motions give us a good insight into the value the Government places on the House of Commons when arriving at adequate decisions regarding this particular Bill or any other Bill.
First, Motion No. 47 deals with the ratio of 15 Senators to 30 Members of the House of Commons. Our motion suggests that the ratio should be 15 Senators to 15 Members, the implication being that 15 Members are of as equal value as 15 Senators. 1 am not sure of the need for the involvement of the other place at all because the matter must still come to Parliament.
Motions Nos. 48 and 49 deal with the accountability of the Administrator to the Parliament of Canada and in that way are very important. Just to give you some idea of the kind of concern we are expressing by moving this particular motion, Mr. Speaker, I must mention that during the committee hearings a question was asked of an official of the Department of Transport as to why this particular kind of clause should be included in the Bill. The answer to that question given by the official of the Department of Transport can give us some idea of the importance of having the situation debated by the
House of Commons. Mr. Lefebvre answered the question put by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) by saying:
This idea emerged while discussing this scheme and when the industry people did not have some specific ideas as to how it would work. It crossed our minds that it was a very substantial power to give to the Governor in Council or to the Minister or to the Administrator, because it can impose some awards and sanctions on private parties, if you wish. Since it was to affect the rights and obligations of citizens under the law, it was felt better if Parliament had a good look at this.
As far as Liberal Members are concerned, Parliament can take a good look at something in one hour. I think that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I 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. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I hope that I speak for all Members in this House when I say that words are inadequate to express the feeling of horror and dismay that surged through all of us over the weekend on learning of the savage and unprovoked slaughter that occurred in Lebanon during which upwards of 200 American and French servicemen died in their sleep under the rubble of buildings that were heartlessly demolished in a sneak attack on their barracks.
The American, British, French, and Italian forces are in Lebanon for one purpose only, namely, to provide negotiating time so that the contending forces in that war-weary and faction ridden country can work out their differences and produce a durable solution.
That shameless, senseless, and subhuman attack can only set that process back. Those responsible will have to bear the total burden for their iniquitous behaviour in destroying defenceless men, because they will inevitably call down on themselves the retribution they so richly deserve. I think that this House will want to send its condolences to the families of those victims.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 24, 1983



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise to speak on a serious matter of loss of jobs at the Dominion Bridge plant in Winnipeg. This plant laid off another 65 workers in mid October. This western plant has manpower facilities, capacity, ability and experience to fulfil transmission tower line construction contracts abroad.
Several weeks ago Dominion Bridge of Winnipeg submitted the lowest of four Canadian tenders on a $7.5 million transmission line project in Pakistan under our CIDA program. As soon as the contract is awarded, many of the laid-off workers would be eligible for recall as this project is expected to provide 65 man-years of work. I urge the Minister responsible to expedite the approval and signing of this contract without further delay.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, today the doors of Native Friendship Centres from coast to coast are closed to protest delay in delivery of funding for the new Native Friendship Centre Program which was approved by Cabinet on May 13, 1983. In front of 60 Friendship Centre representatives in Vancouver on May 29 of this year, the Secretary of State announced that the new program would come into effect April 1, 1983, and would run for five years.
The present Native Friendship Centre Program encompasses a network of 84 Friendship Centres, six developing centres, their provincial and territorial associations, as well as a national office. This well thought out and excellent Program is designed to improve the quality of life for native people in an urban environment, and it provides such services as employment counselling, legal information, emergency shelter, youth programs, alcohol counselling, family counselling, and others.
The delay in delivery of this negotiated program has caused centres to incur thousands of dollars in bank interest charges and has brought many to the brink of financial collapse. The success of Friendship Centres in assisting native people to adjust to mainstream society is recognized by all levels, including Cabinet. Therefore it is unacceptable that the Government should now go back on its word and jeopardize this most worth-while program. Funding, as promised, should be provided immediately.
[ Translation]



INDUSTRY


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Madam Speaker, 1 am rising under the provisions of Standing Order 21 to launch an appeal for action by the House of Commons.
Last Friday, the Quebec Minister of Hunting and Tourism announced his negotiating position with respect to reviving this industry in Quebec. He said that $20 million was available to eight major centres for the purpose of improving downhill skiing facilities. I also found out that last Friday, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston) attended a federal-provincial meeting, and that this item was on the agenda. In the Eastern Townships, which have four major centres, namely, Orford, Sutton, Owl's Head and Bromont, an agreement of this kind would provide the desired industrial diversification to help former workers in the textile, clothing and footwear industries. Since more than 2,000 jobs will be created in this way, it is extremely important to have this agreement finalized as soon as possible.



UNITED NATIONS


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, today is United Nations Day. We would do well to remember the purpose of the United Nations which was set up to create a system for the maintenance of international peace and security. To that end a set of principles was drafted for the conduct of states. Chief among those principles is the commitment not to use force in international affairs, and not to interfere in other states' domestic affairs. Those principles are as valid today as they were when the UN Charter was drafted in 1945.
But we need only look around us to recognize that every citizen of every nation must redouble their efforts in support of those principles. Today, there are some 45 states, one out of every four nations, at war. More than four million soldiers are directly involved in those wars, and between one million and five million people have been killed in them. Today we should be mindful of that.
We should also be mindful of the threat to international security posed by the rising tide of terrorism. Yesterday's senseless bombing in Beirut, which has now claimed more than 170 American lives and more than 40 French troops, all assigned to Lebanon on so-called peacekeeping missions, is only the most recent and most graphic example. Our condemnation of terrorism must extend to the attacks on Corinto and
October 24, 1983

Puerto Sandino in Nicaragua, it must extend to South Africa's raid on Maputo, Mozambique, and to the senseless attack in Chandighar, India, last week which claimed 16 civilian lives.
As parliamentarians we must do more than deplore senseless acts of terrorism. We must recommit ourselves to the vital goals set down in the United Nations Charter-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.



INDUSTRY


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my statement today will be quite different, in that I wish to correct an error made in my statement of Thursday, October 20. At that time I indicated that the selling price of the licences of Maislin Transport was, in my words, "a pittance". I was incorrect.
The price being paid for the licences is in fact well above their value. The point is that, because of generous tax allowances, the U.S. trucking company is able to move into Canada and pick up these valuable concessions in a manner not open to Canadians. In addition, because of the heavy handed manner of the major bank involved, employees have been told that they will receive less if the deal is not approved. It is interesting that the bank will recoup nearly all its funds, while small companies are unprotected.
1 support the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on his decision to send this matter to FIRA. It is the least that can be done under the circumstances, circumstances that once again point out the flagrant way the Government regularly wastes taxpayers' money on deals for its friends, with no thought for Canadian workers or small business.



THE UKRAINE


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, it is now 50 years since the first recorded holocaust in the history of mankind, and the largest holocaust of this century. It preceded the Jewish holocaust by some ten years, and was possibly its precursor.
To those who survived it, it is known as "the great famine", or "the great artificial, man-made famine". Between 1932 and 1933 some six million to ten million Ukrainians in the rurai areas of the Ukrainian-Soviet Socialist Republic were systematically starved to death. Those responsible for this crime were never brought to justice, and the Soviet Government has done everything in its power to remove any evidence relating to this horrifying deed.
On behalf of those Canadians of Ukrainian origin and, indeed, on behalf of all Canadians, I urge the Government of Canada to propose a General Assembly resolution at the United Nations calling for an independent inquiry to determine who was responsible for the holocaust.
To date, based on the studies mostly of Ukrainian scholars, survivors, their relatives, and on a few reports of correspondents of the time, the Soviet Government of that era is the obvious prime suspect. Crimes of such magnitude against humanity must be investigated by judicial bodies of international stature to establish legal identification of the perpetrators. Only then could public opinion in free nations be harnessed to strengthen further human rights legislation and its enforcement to prevent further such horrendous crimes.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, invididuals charged and convicted of brutal murder have been released on parole and have subsequently been charged with committing other crimes. I do not want to dwell on the specifics of any case, but I want all of us to think about our families, our children, and the citizens of the country, and wonder how much protection innocent Canadians really have.
I am an advocate of capital punishment to protect the innocent. I know capital punishment is not the sole answer to resolving the weaknesses in our justice system, but it is a major step toward protecting the innocent. I know it is difficult for some Hon. Members to accept that capital punishment is a deterrent to those warped humans who kill in cold blood. It is hard to understand what goes on in the minds of cold-blooded killers. However, I know, after being a police officer for six years, that with the reintroduction of capital punishment convicted murderers will not murder again.
The people of my riding have seen more than their fair share of brutal crime, and they speak with one mind on the issue of capital punishment. The majority of the people of Mission-Port Moody want to see the reintroduction of capital punishment for convicted first degree murderers. We, as lawmakers of the country, should heed this call.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, my statement follows on an earlier one made by the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant). I am concerned that the Canadian Government, by testing the Cruise missile, is directly contributing to an already too expensive nuclear arms race, which in turn is contributing to the

October 24, 1983
Oral Questions
general economic decline affecting all nations of the world. At a time when peace is desired by so many, too much money is being spent on armed conflict and in the preparation of defence against future armed conflict. This weekend 1.5 million concerned Europeans and North Americans protested the deployment of the Cruise and Pershing II missiles, and the further escalation of the arms race throughout the world.
The global obsession with weapons and military might has resulted in total military budgets throughout the world of more than $550 billion per year, about $100 billion of which is spent on the growing stockpile of nuclear weapons. The world's military budget equals the annual income of $ 1.8 billion people in the 36 poorest countries. If the world's nuclear arsenal were reduced by only one-half, it would free up $50 billion a year to tackle some of the social and economic problems facing the world.
The social, economic, and security costs of the arms race are too high. The Canadian Government must be doing more to stop the arms race, not fuel it. We begin that path to peace by first refusing to test the Cruise-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.



TOURISM


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, on Thursday of last week in my riding we held a tourism day in which 100 individuals from a 450-mile radius participated. We felt it was a very worth-while day. Recently the Government budgeted another $7.4 million to tourism advertising in addition to the $31.9 million already budgeted, but on the other hand the Government has increased by 13 per cent the tax on alcohol. As the President of the Metro Toronto Hotel Association said, "The Government has taxed the product so much that we can't sell it". As a Member who comes from an area where tourism is important, I say to Hon. Members opposite, "Please don't tax the tourism industry any more".



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Of course he will be aware of events in the Caribbean over the weekend, including a meeting of Caribbean leaders to deal with the murderous take-over in Grenada. The leaders of the
Caribbean nations suspended trade and commercial arrangements, among other activities, with the extreme Marxist group which has seized power in Grenada. Given the role of Canada as the leading Commonwealth member in this hemisphere, is it the intention of the Government of Canada to follow suit in pursuit of this objective?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, at this time 1 cannot add much to what was said by the Minister of State for External Relations on Friday. We are looking at the reactions of the countries of the area, and we are assessing our future policy. To my knowledge none has been communicated to me this morning, but I would sit, in deference to the Hon. Minister of State, if there is some further point he can make.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON RECOGNITION OF NEW REGIME
Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, one of the most startling things that has been said in regard to external relations for a long time was stated by the Minister last week when he indicated that Canada would recognize the new Government after a reasonable, decent period of time. In other words, no matter what transpired down there, no matter how heinous the activities, we were just going to close our eyes for a while, irrespective of the manner in which the new government seized power, and things would be fine by and by. They are not fine. They are getting worse day by day.
In light of this, and because of the strategic importance to Canada and the United States of developments down there, 1 ask the Prime Minister whether that bizarre statement by the Minister indeed reflects government policy on the one hand. On the other hand, what assurance can he give that officials, people in Canada on student visas, and those who are seeking landed immigrant status, will be given every right and permission to remain in Canada until such time as the situation is clearly normalized down there?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I was not in the House on Friday, but I had occasion to read the answers of the Minister of State for External Relations. It seems that the Leader of the Opposition is doing him some injustice in saying that, no matter what, we would recognize that government in a matter of time. For instance, as reported at page 28199 of Hansard, the Minister said:
We need to find out what the relations will be between the government in question and neighbouring governments, and what the reality of the administration exercised by that government will be.
On the following pages of Hansard, in answer to other Hon. Members, he repeated the same statement and seemed to be qualifying rather considerably the unfortunate misquotation of the Leader of the Opposition. I think the Minister gave a perfectly reasonable answer. We want to assess the situation. We will be influenced by other Commonwealth and Caribbean countries in the area, which presumably know more about the situation because they are closer. 1 have just heard from the
October 24, 1983

Minister that the Department is in the process of undertaking those assessments and consultations.
In so far as the latter part of the question is concerned, I cannot give a theoretical answer. I do not know how many Grenadians are in Canada, nor what are their backgrounds and conditions. Perhaps some should be given permission to stay; perhaps some should not. I think we would have to examine each case individually.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is absolutely remarkable. I hoped that he would immediately say that all Grenadians would be allowed to remain in Canada until the situation is clarified, and that they will not be forced to go back there.


REQUEST THAT GRENADIANS BE PERMITTED TO REMAIN IN CANADA
Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, there was no misquotation by me whatsoever. It was a very clear statement by the Minister to the effect that it was the intention of the Government of Canada to recognize the new Government "after a reasonable, decent period of time". That was the statement of the duly authorized representative of the Government of Canada.
In light of this, will the Prime Minister give the House a formal guarantee that all Grenadians presently in Canada, for the reasons that I mentioned, will be allowed to stay here, and that no pressure of any kind, directly or otherwise, by Immigration Canada or anyone else will be brought to bear on them, so that they can remain here until the matter is fully resolved to the satisfaction not only of the Government but of all Members of the House of Commons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am somewhat astonished that the Leader of the Opposition would insist on being so absolute about this. He repeats "all Grenadians". That was his first question, "all Grenadians". How do I know if there are not some Grenadians in the group who should be sent back? Maybe there are some who are in cahoots with the Marxists there, who helped in some way. I do not know. Surely it would be irresponsible for me to give to the Leader of the Opposition the guarantee he asks of me, and for which he gets applause.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SAFETY OF CANADIAN CITIZENS IN GRENADA
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. As there is grave concern for many Canadians who are on the island, will the Prime Minister indicate specifically what steps have been taken to ensure the safety of these Canadians and, specifically, have all Canadians who wish to leave now been removed from this island?
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of State (External Relations)):: Madam Speaker, I will try to answer this question. We now have a plane ready to go. The regional group which met during the weekend stopped all air and sea links. I do not know the value of that decision. It is supposed to be unanimous, but it was only a majority decision. Be that as it may, we now have a plane ready to go, as I already said. We have obtained clearance from the CARICOM group. We now have clearance to take off from Barbados. We have clearance from Grenada to land, in principle anyway. We hope that later today, or tomorrow, the plane will pick up those Canadians who have expressed the wish to return. To be specific, there are apparently 24 of them.


REQUEST THAT AID TO GRENADA BE SUSPENDED
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister who, as we know, quoted from his Secretary of State for External Relations today. He referred to the fact that the Secretary of State for External Relations made reference to neighbouring condemnation as far as the situation in Grenada is concerned. In view of the fact that the majority of those neighbouring nations have, in no uncertain terms, condemned what has taken place in Grenada, will the Prime Minister state that there will in fact be a suspension of Canada's aid to that island until there is at least a reputable Government in power, bearing in mind that that area, on a per capita basis, receives one of the highest amounts in aid that Canada gives to any country in the area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would have to verify to see whether that figure is correct. When the Hon. Member says one of the highest amounts of aid, I suppose that could put it tenth or twentieth in ranking, knowing the Hon. Member's way of thinking. From memory, I know that there are several countries which receive a higher amount of aid per capita than Grenada.
The Hon. Member refers to the Minister's statement on Friday. I have it here at page 28200 of Hansard, "Indeed, we will consult with the Governments of different West Indies islands". We are in the process of doing so. I know for a fact that even Mr. Bishop's Government, which is now regretted by some of these leaders and which, I understand, is even regretted by members of the Official Opposition, was one with which we did not decide to cut all ties. We said "Well, at least he is there; he is a member of the Commonwealth." I remember telling the Leader of the New Democratic Party that we were hoping that he would have elections soon. I had raised the matter with Prime Minister Maurice Bishop, indicating that we hoped he would have elections soon. It was not the Government with which we had cut ties. It was a Government which was practically put in quarantine by several other countries which are now beginning to say that maybe we were better off with Bishop than we are with this new crew. That is why this Government does not act as hastily, and does not shoot from the hip as the Hon. Member is accustomed to doing.

October 24, 1983
Oral Questions
We look at the situation and we study it before making condemnations, realizing that some people are worse than others, and we are better, once again, with those who are half way than with those who have gone the whole way towards revolution and murder.
 * *


DISARMAMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. On the weekend millions of people around the world were demonstrating for the cause of peace, particularly the cause of disarmament, concerned about the apparent deadlock that exists in the talks between the superpowers.
Last April I asked the Prime Minister if he thought any reasonable calculation of the balance of forces between the two great nuclear powers should include the French and British missiles. At that time the Prime Minister dismissed the question. Since then a number of European leaders, a number of former NATO generals, and Canadian Admiral Falls have said that the French and British nuclear missiles should be included in such calculations as a means of making a constructive proposal that could lead to some kind of settlement. Has the Prime Minister rethought this matter, and will he now agree that the French and British missiles should be included?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member asks if I have rethought the matter. I do not want to sound immodest, but I have been thinking of it for quite a few months. When he suggests that 1 dismissed his suggestion, I think the expression is perhaps incorrect. I do not remember the exact exchange, but even those who listened to rumours at Williamsburg will know that the question of counting the French and English missiles, at some point, in some way in some talks, is not unreasonable. 1 have said that on various occasions. Therefore, I am not dismissing it out of hand. I have not dismissed it. It is a very complex negotiation.
When we are talking of the INF negotiations in Geneva, I do not think it is right to contemplate including the British and the French systems, because they are strategic systems. They are not theatre, or they are not intermediate nuclear forces. They are considered by those sovereign nations as strategic forces and, therefore, the solution might be to count them at some point in the START talks but not in the INF talks.
I cannot speak for France or Britain. I do not want, as a NATO ally, to state any position which would not be agreed to by them. I know that for the point of view of the Germans, for instance, they cannot count on the French or the British nuclear arms because they are strategic arms used by those countries to protect their sovereignty. The Germans, who have no nuclear arms under their total control, have to count on the Americans.
It is not unreasonable for the Americans to say, "Well, we should have as much as the Soviets." If the Soviets say, "We must put the American, British and French in the same basket and we Soviets have equal to that total", then obviously that is a way for the Soviet Union to state that it must have absolute superiority over the United States. I do not think that even my hon. friend would want that to happen. Therefore, it is somewhat complex to make a bland statement about the French and British missiles.


DISCUSSIONS AT WILLIAMSBURG SUMMIT MEETING
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister seemed to come down again on both sides of the street in this admittedly complex issue. As he knows, the largest mass based democratic party in western Europe, namely, the SPD in Germany, which to some extent can be regarded as the author of the two-track policy which the Prime Minister has given a lot of support to, is now, with its leader, clearly saying publicly, as are Canadians and Americans of some distinction, with considerable expertise in this field, that there ought to be such a calculation that takes into account the French and British missiles.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister to be a little more declaratory here today. He said there were rumours coming out of Williamsburg. He is usually the first to dismiss rumours. Would he now tell us if in the discussions that took place with President Reagan in particular he put forward, on the part of Canada, a package that included the counting of the French and British missiles? If he did not, why did he not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Member has accused me of being vague and being on both sides of the street. I noted his words, "such a calculation", which would include the French and the British. If he reads my previous answer he will see that there are some circumstances where "such a calculation" would be possible, but there are other ways in which it would not be possible if we intend to include them in the INF talks. I do not think that is coming down on both sides of the street; that is making a difference between INF and START. The Hon. Member, by using these words "such a calculation", put himself squarely on both sides of the street. I would like to know what he means by "such a calculation"?


John Edward Broadbent: If the Prime Minister from time to time would participate in the debates on disarmament in this House we would all learn very well where the Government stands. He should just do that, once in this House.


REQUEST THAT AMBASSADOR FOR DISARMAMENT BE APPOINTED
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, as a final question to the Prime Minister I would like to ask him, considering the importance of disarmament, and considering
October 24, 1983

that we have not had an ambassador for disarmament, not for one, two or three months, but for many months, when will he be announcing the replacement for that position so that the commitment that he has made publicly to take disarmament very seriously will in fact be fought out in public forums, including the United Nations, by a Canadian ambassador appointed for that job.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is rather churlish in suggesting that I do not participate in debate. We are having one now in this Question Period. He asked me a question and 1 answered it. I asked him a question and he fluffed it, Madam Speaker. He does not know what he means by "such a calculation". In so far as the ambassador is concerned, Madam Speaker, we are considering the matter.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The Minister responsible for Canadair has indicated that any future decisions regarding further financial assistance to Canadair will be taken within the context of an aerospace policy of the Government. Would the Minister indicate to the House whether that aerospace policy is under way, and when will it be issued to the public for debate?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, the aerospace strategy is an ongoing process. This is one of the reasons we have decided to invest some money with the private sector in the Bell helicopter project. With respect to the specific strategy for Canadair and de Havilland, the Minister responsible for both of those Crown corporations has indicated he will be bringing that forward in the very near future and he will be going to the parliamentary committee, as the Prime Minister has indicated on several occasions, with respect to the role of Canadair and de Havilland in the over-all aerospace sector in Canada.


FUNDING OF CORPORATION
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Since the request for future funding of Canadair is probably going to amount to some hundreds of millions of dollars- there was a report the other day that suggested it might be as high as $400 million-will the Prime Minister commit to this House that no further request for funds will be made until we have had a chance to see this aerospace policy from the Government? Also, will the Prime Minister instruct Canadair not to take any action which will cause these moneys to be spent in anticipation of funding approvals to be received from
Oral Questions
the Government and to make the position of this Parliament totally irrelevant?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I may remind the Hon. Member that the Minister responsible for Canadair and de Havilland made an exhaustive report to the Standing Committees of the House on the specific situations in these corporations.
The Hon. Member will also recall that a decision to provide additional funding for Canadair will depend on an assessment of the Corporation's viability and especially of the Challenger aircraft which is now showing very good signs of being viable.


APPOINTMENT OF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Revenue. Four and one-half months ago the Minister in the other place, responsible for Canadair, stated that a new executive officer was going to be recruited to run Canadair. In view of the importance of the aerospace industry to Canada and the magnitude of the problems of Canadair, can the Minister tell the House when that appointment will be made?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I shall ask the Minister responsible about this, and I shall then be happy to answer the Hon. Member's question.


APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL DIRECTORS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, at the same time I wonder if the Minister might address himself to this problem. Four and one-half months ago the same Minister made a commitment to make additional appointments to the board of directors of Canadair to strengthen its input into the activities of the company. Once again, in view of the importance of the aerospace industry to Canada and the magnitude of the problems of Canadair, when will the Minister commit to this House to appoint to the board of directors the people the Minister refers to as having experience in the aerospace industry?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I am surprised at the Hon. Member's question and his wanting to appoint more people to Canadair's board of directors, since on the opposite side of the House, Hon. Members often worry about there being too many people at the top in our Crown corporations. By establishing the Canada Development Investment Corporation, the Government has tried to provide for better management of corpo-

October 24, 1983
Oral Questions
rations like Canadair and de Elavilland, and that is already a considerable improvement. However, 1 do not think the Hon. Member's suggestion to increase the number of directors will provide a solution to Canadair's problems.


INCOME TAX
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, my question too is for the Minister of National Revenue, and it concerns Section 31 of the Income Tax Act. A number of farmers who have been audited and reassessed under Section 31 are planning to go before the tax court of Canada. In this forum they have the right to subpoena information and witnesses. Can these farmers subpoena the individual auditors from Revenue Canada whose very lack of agricultural knowledge has in many cases forced these farmers to the brink of financial ruin?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, people who go to court may call any witness they wish. As far as the Hon. Member's comment on local auditors is concerned, these are experienced people who do their work using their knowledge of the Income Tax Act and its applications.


APPEARANCE OF AUDITORS BEFORE COURTS
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, I make just one comment. Some of those auditors do not know the difference between a horse and a cow, as far as I am concerned.
Would the Minister please inform or instruct the various divisions of the audit department that these auditors indeed do have to appear before the tax court, because they are telling people in my riding that under law they do not have to appear?


An Hon. Member:: The horse is the taller one.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I feel that when people are called to testify in court, it is up to the court to subpoena witnesses, who will respond as they are asked to testify.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Remi Bujold (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the concern of the Minister and the Government for job creation, has the Minister considered new ways of improving immigration procedures for business people, with a view to promoting economic growth? In this connection, has the Minister developed a special program that would facilitate the admission of immigrants whose business projects might help create jobs in Canada?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Yes, Madam Speaker.

It is true that we attach great importance to improving the entry of entrepreneurs into Canada. We intend to attach more importance to this than we have in the past. We have developed a whole variety of flexible procedures to encourage that to happen, including changed criteria and the positioning abroad of officers who will encourage this to happen. The details of this program will be announced later on today, or certainly later this week, and we hope to have this program in full operation by the beginning of next year.


DISARMAMENT
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. He would know that there is a good deal of feeling everywhere in the world that the second part of the two-track position has not been given a good enough chance yet, and that there needs to be more negotiation at the INF talks in Geneva before deployment takes place. There is the proposal of the Prime Minister of Greece, for example, that there be a moratorium on deployment of the Cruise and Pershing II while further negotiations at the INF take place.
I wonder if the Prime Minister has had any correspondence or discussions with NATO ministers in recent months, apart from the big three, so to speak-the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, the new Prime Minister of Italy, the Prime Minister of Denmark and other NATO partners. Has he had any correspondence or discussions with them on the matter of postponing the deployment while talks continue at Geneva?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in answering the second part of the question I will answer the first in part.
October 24, 1983

When 1 met Prime Minister Papandreou in Greece about a month and a half ago, the Hon. Member will recall that the Prime Minister had proposed such a six-month moratorium, and he asked me for my opinion on that. I indicated to him that I thought it would be wrong to propose a moratorium at this stage. After all, the Soviets had known since December, 1979, that the deadline was December 1983. I think it would not be conducive to conclusive negotiations in the weeks that remain if, suddenly, that pressure were lifted and if the moratorium brought us to some deadline in June because, as I asked Prime Minister Papandreou, what will happen in June if there is still no agreement? Will we then have another moratorium and, if not, why not? If we can go from moratorium to moratorium, then the deadline we set four years ago would be meaningless.
I think we must stick to this dealine and hope that the two superpowers will reach some conclusion in the short time remaining that will make deployment unnecessary.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, of course the Prime Minister will recall that, one of the difficulties in getting the talks going was the new administration in the United States which waited for ten months before it even started thinking about it. Given that, it would seem to me advisable that one give a bit more time now that the negotiations have actually started.


NUCLEAR FREEZE RESOLUTION
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared to take the initiative and pursue this with other NATO Prime Ministers and, indeed, with Leaders of the Opposition as well, and look again at the Sweden-Mexico nuclear freeze resolution at the UN last Fall. Canada voted against the motion. It was one of 17 nations opposing that nuclear freeze resolution. Would the Prime Minister look at that again and tell the House whether Canada will be prepared to support that resolution? It will be coming forward again in a few weeks time at the UN.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, you realize that the question is hypothetical. If the matter comes forth again, I do not see why Canada should change its vote from last year. Our position last year was that the Soviets had modernized their equipment by replacing the SS-4 and the SS-5 with the SS-20. In 1979 we told the Soviets that we would be doing the same thing and replacing our armaments with more modern armaments. I do not see why we should freeze when, in that particular theatre, the Soviets have given themselves an advantage since 1970.


Pauline Jewett: Read the resolution.
Oral Questions INCOME TAX


DEPARTMENT'S TREATMENT OF TORONTO SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA MUSICIANS
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. The Minister may know that for 61 years the musicians in the Toronto Symphony Orchestra have been considered to be self-employed artists for the purpose of taxes. Recently members of the Minister's Department have ruled that, from now on and, indeed, retroactive to January, 1983, such musicians are to be considered as employees of the Symphony. This is going to cost the musicians money, and is going to raise the expenses of the Symphony Orchestra. Since this situation does not obtain with the Montreal Symphony Orchestra, for example, I should like to ask the Minister if he would give the undertaking that he will place a moratorium on that ruling, and meet with the principals involved?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, this is the second time in two weeks that Hon. Members are asking the Minister of National Revenue to declare a moratorium for a group of taxpayers. Last week, it was artists, today it is musicians. This could be an extremely dangerous practice. After two or three months we might get to the point where no one in Canada would be paying taxes. I can assure the Hon. Member that the recent ruling made by the Toronto District Office will be given careful study, but I must point out that the ruling was made in accordance with the provisions of the Act, that it makes a distinction between a person who is self-employed and a person who is employed by someone else, and that such rulings must be made in the light of our legislation and of rulings in similar cases across the country.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I can assure the Minister of one thing. If he keeps on with these tax policies there are not going to be any artists in this country. I will be on my feet every day asking questions about these policies.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET MUSICIANS
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Minister two things in this context. First of all, this is not a rule that applies across the country to all symphony orchestras. That is why they feel that they are personally being prejudiced by the Minister's officials. Second, this policy is retroactive to January, 1983. The musicians have not even had a chance to respond.
Within that context I should like to ask the Minister, in fairness, if not to the artists of this country at least to the musicians, if he will not give them an opportunity to have a meeting with him before he taxes all artists right off the land?

October 24, 1983
Oral Questions


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member will not take the time to try and understand the situation. If the Hon. Member would care to read again the question he put last week regardng a specific group of artists, he will see that he was entirely mistaken. In his question he assumed that inventories of artists, including paintings and graphic art, were taxed, which is entirely false. I suppose he has had a chance to check his facts and find out that he was wrong.
Instead of worrying whether the application of the legislation to a specific group is fair or unfair, he should realize that when we apply an administrative policy on taxation or, as in the present case, on the insurability of a group of workers for unemployment insurance purposes, this must be done in accordance with existing legislation, and we must also ensure that other groups that find themselves in the same situation are not, as a result, treated unfairly. That is what we are doing.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. On Thursday last I asked the Prime Member a question on these lines. In view of the fact that federal Government expenditures have been increasing at a considerably faster rate than the rate of increase in the GNP, would the Prime Minister advise the House what steps the Government intends to take to bring the rate of increase of total federal government expenditures in line with the rate of increase in the GNP as he assured the country he intended to do during the election campaign in 1980?
In view of the fact that Statistics Canada has reconfirmed to me that total federal government expenditures increased steadily from 19.6 per cent of GNP in 1979 to 25.9 per cent of GNP in the first six months of this year-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Is the Hon. Member going to come to the question?


Mr. Chretien:: Next week.


George Harris Hees: Yes, right now, Madam Speaker. When does the Prime Minister intend to make good on his election promise that he would keep expenditures in line with the rate of growth in the GNP?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it is unusual, but I must say that the Hon. Member disappoints me when he compares 1979 with the first six months of this year. I do not believe that one can compare one year to six months and establish a valid trend line, Madam Speaker. It is well known that in the first half of the fiscal year
the major part of government spending happens, and then it tapers off. However, there can be variations from year to year.
I would suggest that the Hon. Member ask the Bureau of Statistics this question. Let him take the trend line from 1979 or 1976, or whatever, and follow it through with the projections of the Minister of Finance. He will see that, though we did go above that trend line, I believe last year especially, when we were attempting to deal with unusually high unemployment, the trend line, according to the projections of the Minister of Finance, is downward, not upward.


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to assure the Prime Minister that I have already done just exactly that, and the result is as follows. In 1979 federal expenditures increased-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member must ask a supplementary question, if he has one, and not read in more statistics. A question.
1980 ELECTION COMMITMENT


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, the figures which I have here show the Prime Minister has been misleading the House because there has been a steady-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Not deliberately, not deliberately.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Not deliberately.


Madam Speaker:: I recognize that the Hon. Member might have some statistics which prove something else, but that is debate, and the time allotted now is for questions. If the Hon. Member does not have a question, I am afraid I will not be able to recognize him. A question.


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that Statistics Canada have given me figures which prove exactly what I have said in my first question, and disprove exactly what the Prime Minister has tried to put over in the House, I would simply ask him when he is going to make good on the commitment which he gave to this country when, on January 20, 1980, he said, "Our commitment is this: we will hold the line on government expenditure growth to, at, or under the rate of growth of the GNP".


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member for Northumberland reads the projections of the Minister of Finance in his last budget he will see that we are attempting to live up to that. If he has obtained the figures from the Bureau of Statistics, as he says, I wonder why he has given us just a six months' figure.
October 24, 1983


George Harris Hees: Because they are the latest figures which are available.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But is that six months' figure, Madam Speaker, seasonally adjusted on an annual basis, or is it just the average? Hon. Members opposite who know anything about it know you cannot take a period of the year when you usually spend more, then double it and say that will be the average for the whole year. I wish the Hon. Member would send over the statistics and then I will have them checked with the Bureau of Statistics.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Prince Albert.


George Harris Hees: For 1982 it was 23.7 per cent. That is for the whole year, and you know it.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: You had better get your own figures straight. The Trudeau Bureau of Statistics is not good enough.


RAILWAYS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister is no doubt aware of the imposition of the British Columbia sales tax on the use of Canadian Wheat Board grain cars in that Province. Since such a tax will be taken directly from the incomes of western grain producers, will the Minister tell the House what steps he has taken to prevent the implementation of this tax?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, it would appear quite obvious that an action taken by the British Columbia Government is an action which should rightfully be debated in the British Columbia Legislature. It would be my presumption that the Hon. Member would be in touch with members of his own Party in that particular Assembly to bring the matter to their attention. It might take their minds off some of the other areas of interest which they are presently debating. I will certainly look into the matter. However, I would suggest to the Hon. Member that the first area of recourse would be for that Legislature to come to the recognition that it is probably not a very smart thing to do.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I can agree with the Minister that any sane government would run as far as possible away from the policies and actions of the British Columbia Government, which the Minister seems to be doing.
Oral Questions FARMERS' ABILITY TO PAY


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, as a supplementary question I would ask the Minister about the central issue here, and that is the ability of the farmers to pay. With the prospect of a tax jungle of provincial sales taxes and the federal Government's increase in freight rates of 500 per cent, will the Minister undertake a complete study of the farmers' ability to pay and to absorb these increased costs in both freight rates and taxes and still be able to produce the grain which is so necessary for Canadian exports?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would first like to say to the Hon. Member that in making the case in British Columbia about the imposition of the sales tax, I believe it would be important to point out that the benefits which will accrue to that particular Province, and to many others, will be billions of dollars of benefit. Therefore, if the Hon. Member is interested in helping us develop a case as to why there should not be a sales tax, he may also be prepared to help us encourage the passing of the Crow Bill so we can get those major benefits flowing into the Province of British Columbia, as well as into other areas.
As far as the second question of the Hon. Member is concerned, I would just like to make one small suggestion to him, that is, that he look at the present Bill because there is already full provision for review in which we would be looking at the whole question of the method of payment and the ability to pay.


INDUSTRY
Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
I am aware that the Minister and his colleague, the Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology, met with their provincial counterparts last Friday to discuss a future Canada-Quebec general agreement on regional economic development. Since their agenda includes the ski industry, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance whether he could inform the House on the progress of negotiations, and especially about the possibility of an agreement on the development of this industry which is of vital importance to the Eastern Townships.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, in recent months there have been a number of meetings between federal and provincial officials to discuss the tourism industry in Quebec, with special emphasis on skiing. At these meetings, a general outline for a development plan for the ski industry in Quebec was prepared, and the Government of

October 24, 1983
Business of the House
Quebec decided to announce its views on the subject last Friday.
We have indicated that we were prepared to discuss with the Quebec Government the role of the Canadian Government in this regard. Programs are available under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Development, and we shall see exactly what form our contribution will take. We are indeed very interested in making this industry, which has a considerable impact on employment, a flourishing one in Quebec, and we are looking at effective ways of contributing to the growth of this industry.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. On March 1 of this year I raised the question of the establishment of duty-free stores in Ontario. On October 6 the Hon. Member for Algoma raised the same issue. In both instances the Minister urged us to contact the Province in order that it would give us a favourable answer. I am pleased to announce the Ontario Cabinet has given us an answer. It is willing to go along with the federal Government in principle. When will the Minister open up a duty-free store in the riding of Erie?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, as soon as we have managed to reconcile principles and practice.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I understand that the oral question period is now over.


Madam Speaker:: Oral question period always ends at three o'clock.


Yvon Pinard: In the circumstances-
-I would like to deal with House business. There have been some consultations, and contrary to what I indicated earlier today, tomorrow will not be an Opposition day. Also contrary to what was said last week, we will not wait until after we get final approval of Bill C-155 before seeking the approval of four other Bills which are needed before we consider proroguing. Therefore, what I am about to say is to confirm, after consultation with the House Leaders in the Opposition, that we have
agreed to give passage to all stages of four Bills before tomorrow at 6 p.m.
The first item of business this afternoon will be Bill C-163, dealing with air safety. The understanding is that we will have one speaker per Party and we will then dispose of all stages of that Bill.
That will be followed by starting debate on report stage of Bill C-152, Government reorganization.
Tomorrow morning between eleven o'clock and one o'clock we have a firm agreement that we will deal with two Bills through all stages. First is Bill C-169, dealing with the Canada Elections Act, the agreement being that we will have one speaker per Party and we will then dispose of all stages of that Bill.
Second is Bill C-168, dealing with the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, the agreement being one speaker per Party and that we will then dispose of all stages of that Bill. All of that will be done before one o'clock. What I have said is based on a firm agreement and understanding and we do not require a House order for that purpose.
Bill C-152, as I said earlier, is the other top priority for the Government to get through before we consider proroguing. We will start debate on report stage this afternoon and resume debate immediately after Question Period tomorrow afternoon. Here I have a House order to make it clear that at the end of the afternoon all questions will be put to dispose of that Bill through remaining stages.
Therefore I seek the unanimous consent of the House for this motion:
That on Tuesday, October 25, 1983, the business taken up under Government Orders after Question Period shall be Bill C-152, an Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto; and
Notwithstanding any Standing Order, no later than 5.45 p.m. that day, every question necessary for the disposal of the report stage and the third reading stage of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.


Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, the program outlined by the Government House Leader is that which he discussed with me, and on behalf of this Party we consent to that House Order. We also have a clear understanding that if we do require additional time for additional speakers to be heard after 5.45 p.m. tomorrow night, there would be no difficulty in obtaining consent from the Government side to extend the hours for that purpose.


Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, similarly, we understand the business of the House today and tomorrow will be as the Government House Leader has put forward, including the question raised by the Opposition House Leader regarding the extension of time if necessary tomorrow to complete Bill C-152.


Madam Speaker:: If there is unanimous consent, then it is so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
October 24, 1983
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I think you will find the House disposed to consent to allow the following motions to be put for consideration in the interests of improving Bill C-155 when we resume debate on this Bill. The first motion is as follows:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 58 by immediately adding after line 13 at page 34 the following therefor:
"58.(3) Notwithstanding anything in this Act based upon the recommendations of the committee established under Section 59(2) to examine the method of payment, the Governor in Council may subject to approval by Parliament, make regulations prescribing the manner in which, and the Parties to whom, payment of the Government contribution, including the Crow benefit, shall be made".
Briefly, that would allow an enabling provision to incorporate a modified method of payment depending upon the recommendations of the inquiry that will flow therefrom.
The second motion is as follows:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 43 by adding immediately after line 34 at page 24 the following:
"(3) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the rate a railway company may charge a shipper for the movement of grain for the period January 1, 1984 to July 31, 1986 shall not exceed the existing rates in effect on August 1, 1983".
That, Madam Speaker, would preserve the statutory freight rate until the end of the crop year 1986 and until such time as the review was completed. I ask that you seek unanimous consent that these motions as read be placed before the House when it resumes debate on Bill C-155, namely an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member wants unanimous consent to waive the notice. Is that very clear?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member is seeking unanimous consent to waive the notice for those amendments to be placed on the Order Paper?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes.


Madam Speaker:: Very well.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, we are in agreement that such amendments be brought forward and considered for debate. I want to assure the House that that does not imply we are in agreement necessarily with the substance of the amendments. But we are certainly in agreement with the proposal.
1 would like at the same time to solicit approval of the House for amendments relating to safety net provisions which I would like to propose in the same spirit we are offering to the Hon. Member for Vegreville.


Erik Nielsen: Put them up now.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, at the outset I want to say that I hope no one is labouring under the misapprehension that somehow or other what the Hon. Member for Vegreville has just done was in any way related to the decision we took
Business of the House
regarding the House Order put forward by the Government House Leader.


Yvon Pinard: Not at all.


Ian Deans: I must confess that the request comes to me without notice and I am not in a position at the moment to grant the unanimous consent necessary for it to proceed since the matter was never discussed with me. If the Hon. Member and the Minister of Transport want to work out their cozy deals, they best come talk to us in advance before they ask for unanimous consent.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in that same spirit of openness and generosity that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain expressed, I might also raise with the House a motion concerning the consideration for debate of a motion relating to the safety net, or would you like-


Madam Speaker:: I would just like to finish the matter we are now dealing with. The Hon. Member for Vegreville has just asked for permission to waive notice to allow two amendments to be placed on the Order Paper for debate.


Erik Nielsen: For debate.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I want to ask both the Minister and the Hon. Member for Vegreville, who obviously would want to have the matter before the House, to postpone asking for that unanimous consent until we have had an opportunity to look at the amendments they are asking for.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I am surprised at the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain because he in effect gave that concurrence last Thursday when he stated, and I quote from page 28174 of Hansard:
More important, on behalf of my colleagues, we would be prepared to consider the matters the Members have put on the floor, at least to this point, and for which they are seeking unanimous consent.
1 think that was a clear concurrence of the fact that the Hon. Member wanted these motions for amendment to be put before the House for debate. We have since advanced two motions which we consider of paramount importance with that in mind. I hope the Hon. Member has not changed his mind.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, as in the past, I refuse to negotiate on the floor of the House. Show me amendments, put the motion later and I will be glad to consider it, hopefully in a favourable way.


Madam Speaker:: Since it is only a matter of the Hon. Member reading the amendment and perhaps being in a position later on to give his unanimous consent or to refuse it, according to his decision, perhaps we could proceed to other items of routine business. Perhaps that would be helpful to the House.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, you have been asked by the Hon. Member for Vegreville to seek the unanimous consent of

October 24, 1983
Business of the House
the House to waive notice for the two motions that he has put. I anticipate, judging from the fact that the Minister has risen in the blouse, that he will be rising to seek consent with respect to some other aspect of the Bill. May I suggest, Madam Speaker, with respect, that you ask for that unanimous consent now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I was only trying to help the House plan its work. However, if that is the desire of the House, I will ask now if there is unanimous consent to the proposal made by the Hon. Member for Vegreville.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Lloyd Axworthy: I rise on a point of order to propose to the House that the House give unanimous concurrence to the consideration of amendments for debate that would take into account the provision of a safety net, which is a concern that I know is shared by all Members of the House. As all Hon. Members will know, it is a very lengthy motion but it would be in exact accordance with Motion No. 157 which was on the previous Order Paper and with Motion No. 74. Perhaps 1 could dispense with the reading of those motions. They would require a 10 per cent safety net for farmers in order to protect them against increased prices. I would ask the House for unanimous consent.


Ian Deans: Similarly, Madam Speaker, if the Minister wants unanimous consent, he should come and talk to us.
[Editor's Note: The motions referred to above are as follows:]
Motion No. 157
That Bill C-155 be amended by striking out the heading "Part IV" preceding Clause 59 at page 34 and substituting the following therefor:


&quot;PART IV
[Stage Direction]
59. In this Part,
"freight to price ratio", in respect of any calendar year, means an amount equal to the quotient, expressed as a percentage obtained by dividing the average cost to the shipper of moving one tonne of grain in that calendar year by the weighted average price for that calendar year;
"shipper share limitation adjustment", in respect of any calendar year, means an amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying
(a)	the number of percentage points by which the freight to price ratio in that calendar year exceeds 10 per cent, by
(Z>) the product obtained by multiplying the weighted average price for that calendar year by the total number of tonnes of grain moved in that calendar
year;
"six grains" means wheat, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed and rapeseed;
"weighted average price", in respect of any calendar year, means the weighted average determined under paragraph 60(1 )(6) in respect of that calendar year.
60.(1) The Commission shall, on or before March 1st of each year, using the information that it deems appropriate, determine, in respect of the preceding calendar year,
(a)	the average price per tonne at which each of the six grains, in storage, was available for sale on each trading day at the port that handled the largest volume of that grain in the calendar year;
(b)	the average of the average prices referred to in paragraph (a), weighted on the basis of the number of tonnes of each of the six grains moved in the calendar year;
(c)	the average cost to the shipper of moving one tonne of grain in the calendar year; and
(d)	the freight to price ratio.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (l)(tf), the average price per tonne at which each of the six grains was available for sale shall be determined on the basis of the price per tonne of the grade of each of those grains the largest volume of which was moved in the calendar year.

[Stage Direction]
and by renumbering the subsequent Parts and Clauses and amending all references accordingly.
Motion No. 74
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 37 by striking out lines 37 to 43 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) the estimated government commitment less an amount equal to the CN adjustment in respect of that crop year, plus or minus the total of the interim adjustment for the current crop year and the final adjustment for the preceding crop year, plus the shipper share limitation adjustment for the preceding calendar year, as determined under Part IV, by".
Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the proposal made by the Hon. Minister of Transport?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the twenty-first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of
October 24, 1983

Standing Order 46(2), I would like to table in both official languages the federal Government policy on the CBC entitled "Building for the Future toward a Distinctive CBC".


METRIC COMMISSION
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages the tenth report of Metric Commission Canada for the year ending March 31, 1983.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages the federal Government's response to the report on urea formhaldehyde foam insulation of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


PETITION
Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I would like to present to the House of Commons today a petition signed by residents of my riding, particularly those from the centres of The Battlefords, Rud-dell, Vawn, Cochin and Cole Bay. The petition. Madam Speaker, was signed during "An Evening in the Park" which was sponsored by the Battlefords Association for Nuclear Disarmament and calls upon Parliament to debate and pass Bill-678, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone, and thereby place the nation of Canada in a position to act as a mediator in the worldwide nuclear disarmament process.


Madam Speaker:: Motions. Since Hon. Members are capable of appreciating the great number of motions that we have on the Order Paper, if any Member wishes to move, perhaps he could indicate to the Chair and 1 will call that motion.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, on this occasion only, because I would not want to see a poor precedent established, I would suggest that the procedure followed by the Chair in asking Hon. Members if they wish to move motions they have on the Order Paper is acceptable for today. However, It may well be that on some other occasion a Member such as myself or any other Member may wish to rise and, on behalf of
Order Paper Questions
another Member, move a motion that is on the Order Paper in that Member's name.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, that would necessitate that the Chair read all of the motions. However, it is not a precedent. I will ask every day for permission to waive the reading of these motions, but Hon. Members realize that this would take a lot of the time of the House, aside from exhausting my energies.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, dealing with these notices, I would be willing to give consent that they be scratched from the Order Paper.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, we believe far too deeply that parliamentary reform is something that should never be scratched from the Order Paper.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, it looks like Liberal and Tory Members are back in bed again, does it not? However, on this occasion only we will allow that we forgo the reading of all of the motions. It is nice to see them working together again.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,857, 5,011, 5,020, 5,026, 5,039 to 5,135.


Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82 (c) 1982-83, what amount was paid to farmers in New Brunswick to assist with field crops?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Assistance paid to farmers for field crops in New Brunswick is as follows:
(a)	(b)	(c)1980-81	1981-82	1982-83Crop Insurance Program	$ 318,595	$ 505,056	$ 462,756Agricultural Development Subsidiary Agreement II*	494,301	624,760	256,285Advance Payments for Crops Program	-payment of interest on advance payment -payment of interest for	312,894	569,857	262,073-	33,441	19,154default accounts	-default accounts paid out	-	-	78,291Fruit and Vegetable Storage Construction Financial Assistance	$ 25,000	$ 170,417	$ 28,521Program	Agricultural Stabilization Board	931,018	3,712,080	26,757
October 24, 1983
Order Paper Questions
(a)	(b)	(c)1980-81	1981-82	1982-82South East New Brunswick Program	-	-	52,412$2,081,808	$5,615,611	$1,186,249
'Transferred from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to the Department of Agriculture in September, 1982.
PETROCAN/BLUE JAYS SEAT CUSHION DAY


Mr. McCuish: 1.	Was July 27, 1983 designated as PetroCan/Blue Jays seat cushion day at Exhibition Stadium in Toronto, Ontario?
2.	Were 20,000 seat cushions distributed to the general public free of charge and, if so, what was the total cost incurred by Petro-Canada as a result of the development, promotion, and production of the cushions?


David Charles Dingwall: Petro-Canada reports as follows:
1.	Yes, July 27, 1983 was designated as Petro-Canada Seat Cushion Day at Exhibition Stadium in Toronto, Ontario.
2.	Twenty-three thousand seat cushions were distributed free of charge to members of the public attending the Blue Jays game on July 27, 1983. The total cost incurred by Petro-Canada as a result of this promotion was $31,700. There were no development or production costs incurred by the Corporation.
1RDP PROGRAM


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton): 1.	Since the inception of the Program, how many applications were (a) received (b) approved for 1RDP Programs in the constituency of Victoria- Haliburton?
2.	What is the total amount of funding for approved IRDP projects in the constituency?


Edward C. Lumley: As of
September 12, 1983, the reply for the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
Liquor	
1980	$396,933,059
1981	$446,911,191
1982	$452,796,660
1983 to August	$278,735,121
Wine	
1980	$23,152,164
1981	$28,744,477
1982	$32,530,514
1983 to August	$26,583,061
Beer	
1980	$221,118,056
1981	$264,107,539
1982	$283,505,862
1983 to August	$219,267,735


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the government to Peter J. E. Cole of the firm of Wiens & Cole, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,040-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to W. C. Middleton, Q. C. of the firm of Middleton & Boni, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,041-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Warren G. Barber, of the firm of Meighen, Haddad & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?
1.	(a) Four, (b) To date, no decision has yet been rendered.
2.	Nil.


Mr. Stewart: In (a) 1980 (b) 1981 (c) 1982 (d) 1983 to date, what was the total amount collected by the Department of National Revenue through taxation on (i) tobacco and tobacco products (ii) liquor (iii) wine (iv) beer?


Pierre Bussières: (i) Tobacco and Tobacco products
1980	$419,559,483
1981	$427,467,127
1982	$447,425,506
1983	to August	$366,193,779


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the government to Garry T, Miller, of the firm of Hirschfield, Hunt, Fjeldsted & Miller, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,043-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Joseph A. Mullally, of the firm of Carroll, Mullally, Paterson & Midwinter, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?
October 24, 1983


Question No. 5,044-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to James H. Treble, of the firm of Treble & McRae, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,045-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to E. W. Hawkins, of the firm of Hawkins & Sanderson, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,046-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Sydney Perlmutter, of Hamiota, Manitoba, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,047-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Duncan E. Geisler, of Ashern, Manitoba, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,048-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to D. D. St. John, Q.C., of the firm of St. John & St. John, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,049-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Kenneth R. Hanssen, of the firm of Duncan & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,050-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to David G. Greenberg, of the firm of Greenberg & Greenberg, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,051-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Orest W. Pressey, of the firm of Miller, Miller & Pressey, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what
Order Paper Questions
proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,052-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Marcel J. J. R. Gregoire, of Roblin, Manitoba, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,053-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Ernest R. Goossen, of the firm of Plett, Goossen & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,054-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Robert P. Smith, of the firm of Smith, Neufeld & Stewart, or to the Firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,055-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to C. W. Buckingham, Q.C., of Virden, Manitoba, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January I to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,056-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Alain J. Hogue, of the firm of Teffaine, Monnin, Hogue & Teillet, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,057-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Morris Kaufman, of the firm of Margolis, Kaufman, Cassidy, Zaifman & Swartz, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,058-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to E. M. Shewchuck, of the firm of Monk, Goodwin & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,059-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to P. W. A. Westbury, of the Firm of Inkster, Walker, Westbury, Irish, Rusen & Hughes, or to the firm itself, with

October 24, 1983
Order Paper Questions
respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,060-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Paul Lewans, of the firm of Lewans & Associates, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,061-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Roderick MacDonald, of the MacDonald Law Firm, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,062-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to James I. Ulmer, of the firm of Coxworth & Ulmer, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,063-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Paul D. Elash, of the firm of Kohaly & Elash, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,064-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Dennis P. Ball, of the firm of Hill, McLellan, Ball, Cundall & Bridges, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,065-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Louis E. H. Stringer, of Gravel-bourg, Saskatchewan, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,066-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Marilyn Scott, of the firm of Sutherland, Behiel & Scott, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,067-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Donald J. Roberts, of the firm of Roberts & Setrakov, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,068-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Edward A. Komarnicki, of the Komarnicki Law Firm, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,069-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Alex G. Robertson, of the firm of Robertson, Baynton, Moskal, Stolniuk & Strilchuk, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,070-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Raymond G. Cariou, of the firm of Cariou, Partyk & Francis, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,071-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Jacob Eisner, of the firm of Eisner, Eisner & Associates, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,072-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Grant Carson, of the firm of Carson & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,073-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to John D. Hillson, of the Hillson Law Office, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,074-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Mervin C. Ozirny, of the firm of Ozirny, Wrubell, Fisher & Tourney, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from
October 24, 1983

January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,075-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to John D. Cooper, of the firm of Grayson & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,076-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Roy A. Dickinson, of the firm of R. A. Dickinson & Associates, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,077-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Terance W. Ocrane, of the firm of Chow, Ocrane, Walper & Hagen, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,078-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Donald J. Osman, of the firm of Goliath, Osman & Gardner, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,079-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to James Eremko, of the firm of Eremko & Eremko, or to the Firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,080-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Brian M. Fitzpatrick, of the firm of Taylor & Fitzpatrick, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,081-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Dennis R. Maher, of the firm of Maher, Lindgren & Blais, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,082-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to David W. Shury, of the firm of Shury, Migneault & Miller, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corpora-
Order Paper Questions
tion of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,083-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Calvin J. Clark, of Outlook, Saskatchewan, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,084-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to J. H. Clyne Harradence, of the firm of Harradence, Longworth & Zatlyn, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,085-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Wayne D. E. McIntyre, of the firm of Balfour, Moss, Milliken, Laschuk, Kyle, Vancise & McIntyre, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,086-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Ian McLellan, of the firm of Gerrand, McLellan & Mulatz, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,087-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Anthony E. F. Merchant, of the firm of Pedersen, Norman, McLeod & Todd, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,088-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to William James Serne, of the firm of Seme, McKenzie & Miller, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,089-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Tom Malloy, of the firm of MacDermid & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?
28268

October 24, 1983
Order Paper Questions 
Question No. 5,090-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to John A. Stack, of the firm of McKercher, McKercher, Stack, Korchin & Laing, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,091-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Donald J. Dermody, of Shaunavon, Saskatchewan, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,092-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Warren J. Holland, of Swift Current, Saskatchewan, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,093-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Donald K. Krueger, of the firm of Krueger, McLaughlin, Forrester & Rittinger, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,094-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Frank A. MacBean, of the firm of Wilson, MacBean, McIntosh, Wiebe & Tessen, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,095-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Harold T. Hepting, of Unity, Saskatchewan, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,096-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to James E. Young, of Unity, Saskatchewan, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,097-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Philip L. Kotyk, of the firm of Kotyk & Zawislak, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i)
a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,098-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Thomas A. Schuck, of the firm of Nimegeers, Schuck, Wormsbecker & Bobbitt, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,099-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Walter Bieber, of Wilkie, Saskatchewan, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,100-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Walter Paulson, of Wynyard, Saskatchewan, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January I to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,101-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Arliss W. Dellow, of the firm of Dellow & Greenhorn, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,102-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Stanley G. Kyba, of Yorkton, Saskatchewan, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,103-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Wayne M. Rusnak, of the firm of Rusnak, Balacko & Kachur, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,104-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to R. B. Logan, of the firm of Logan and Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,105-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to E. P. MacCallum, of the firm of MacCallum & Ritter, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disburse-
October 24, 1983

ments for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January I to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,106-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Dale Wilson, of the firm of Fraser & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,107-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Kenneth W. Lutes, of the firm of Crerar & Lutes, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January I to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,108-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to G. J. Burrell, of the firm of Walsh & Young, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,109-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to G. R. Knaut, of the firm of Knaut, Johnson & Sawle, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so. in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,110-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to W. Harry Gough, of the firm of Ross, Todd & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January I to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,111-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to R. G. Wheatley, of the firm of Wheatley, Sadownik & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,112-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Stuart Campbell, of the firm of Cox, Trofimuk & Campbell, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?
Order Paper Questions 
Question No. 5,113-Mr. Benjamin:
' Were funds payable by the government to David J. Cooke, of the firm of Cooke & Thompson, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January I to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,114-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Gerald Eherer, of Fairview, Alberta, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,115-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to J. W. Freeland, of the firm of Freeland & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,116-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Charles A. MacDonell, of the firm of MacDonell & Sutcliffe, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,117-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to D. B. Todd, of the firm of Ross, Todd & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January I to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,118-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to R. H. Scammell, of the firm of Johnson & Ming, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,119-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to James Dixon, of the firm of Herbert, Fielding & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,120-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to P. G. Flanagan, of the firm of Flanagan, Sully & Surkan, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from

October 24, 1983
Order Paper Questions
January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,121-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to J. I. Boras, of the firm of Boras, Hogan & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,122-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to F. S. Peta, of the firm of Huzil & Peta, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,123-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to D. J. MacLean, of the firm of MacLean & Wiedemann, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January I to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,124-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to D. L. Wilkins, of the firm of Pritchard, Lerner & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,125-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to G. C. Mathieu, of the firm of Campbell & Marceau, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,126-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to J. W. Fowler, of the firm of Fowler & Cardwell, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,127-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to J. F. Ulan, of the firm of Ulan & Associates, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,128-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Richard Holeton, of the firm of Holeton & Langager, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada
and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,129-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Charles A. Webb, of the Charles A. Webb Professional Corporation, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,130-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to D. P. MacNaughton, of the firm of Sloan & MacNaughton, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,131-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to J. A. Blonsky, of the firm of Blonsky & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,132-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Duncan Crerar, of the firm of Reynolds, Crerar & Hurdle, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,133-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to Alex G. Robertson, of the firm of Robertson & Baynton, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,134-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to David Mercer, of the firm of Nickerson, Roberts & Hilborn, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 1 7, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?

Question No. 5,135-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the government to P. L. Adilman, of the firm of Adilman, Sirrs & Watson, or to the firm itself, with respect to fees and disbursements for work rendered for or on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada and/or its clients (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, of the amount received, what proportion was (i) a retainer (ii) assessed as a percentage of negotiated loan amounts (iii) a fee for service (iv) for other expenses?


Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation advises that for Questions Nos. 5,039 to 5,135 inclusive the answer is as follows:
October 24, 1983

Funds payable by Farm Credit Corporation to local solicitors or their firms, with respect to legal fees and disbursements for services rendered for or on behalf of the Corporation, were so made payable in all cases upon the express direction of borrowers out of the proceeds of mortgage loans made to such borrowers by the Corporation in (a) 1980, (b) 1981, (c) 1982 and (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983, in which case the Corporation does not maintain any records of funds so paid and does not segregate any such funds upon payment thereof with respect to the proportion of such funds borrowers may agree to have payable by way of legal fees, disbursements or otherwise.


Mr. Forrestall:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is somewhat of a tradition that has evolved in this Chamber, one that has been adhered to generally by Governments for a long time, and that is the tradition of fairly rapid responses to starred questions. The Chair will be aware, Madam Speaker, that I have now risen in my place on three different occasions to make inquiry as to when in fact the Government will honour that tradition and respond to what is in fact a starred question. The starred question I am referring to is No. 5,038.
On at least three different occasions I have had an indication from the Parliamentary Secretary that he in fact would endeavour to respond to the starred question that I have mentioned. He indicated that he would respond to it with some facility, that type of facility that would tend to preserve the right of a starred question to remain on the Order Paper or to be used as a vehicle by Members to receive what in the Member's judgment is urgent information.
Might I ask through you, Madam Speaker, whether the Parliamentary Secretary would wish me in fact to withdraw my starred question or whether he might take some action today which will recognize the tradition and the utility to Members of Parliament of the practice of starring questions?


Mr. Evans:: Madam Speaker, this was brought to my attention some time ago, as the Hon. Member has indicated. As a result of his inquiry, I looked into the question but I have also looked into the precedent surrounding starred questions.
There is no precedent with regard to the speed with which starred questions are answered. The fact that a question is starred simply means that an oral answer will be given in the House to that question. There is no precedent for that question to be given any attention different from any other question that is put on the Order Paper. But 1 will look into the matter and try to give the Hon. Member an answer as soon as possible.
I wish to point out that there is no precedent given to starred questions with regard to the timing of answers.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, that is absolute rubbish! I have never heard so much rot in all my life. If the Parliamen-
Order Paper Questions
tary Secretary was right, there would be no purpose to starring questions at all. It is for the purpose of seeking oral information at the earliest possible moment. Before he ever came to this place, years ago, before all these traditional changes that have come about, we used to have starred questions answered in 48 hours. Now we are not getting answers for weeks and indeed for months.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, of course the written word of our rules and procedures and the advice that we have in written form confirms that. I was addressing my concern to the principles and practices that have been developed in the House over the last 116 years with respect to starred questions.
If the distinguished Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council is in fact indicating that starred questions have no preference whatsoever, perhaps it is something that the appropriate standing committee now concerned with parliamentary reform might consider. It will be a sad and regrettable day should that happen.
If in fact the practice has fallen into disuse, it is, as the Hon. Member for Yukon has indicated, a result of new rules and parliamentary reform that have come into play within the last two or three years and in the last year particularly. That in no way diminishes the validity of the principle behind starred questions, which is the opportunity for Members in this Chamber to receive verbal urgency in a very rapid, short period of time.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, looking at the precedents in the Standing Orders, in Beauchesne, Bourinot and other references, there is no indication that starred questions are to receive different treatment from other questions except for the fact that a starred question requires an oral response in the House of Commons at the time questions on the Order Paper are answered. That is the only precedent I can find.
If the Chair has a different ruling or interpretation of starred questions, I would certainly appreciate the Chair giving me such a ruling. In my inquiries, as I have indicated, I have found that starred questions simply mean that at the time questions on the Order Paper are raised in Routine Proceedings, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council or the relevant Parliamentary Secretary reads the answer orally. That is all that a starred question means.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I would request the Chair not to rule on this question so that the Parliamentary Secretary might have ample time, instead of sticking his nose and keeping it buried in the clinic of the green book or Beauchesne, to go back into the debates of this place for 25 years and see the remarks that were made with respect to governments of both Conservative and Liberal times when the parliamentary starred question process meant something.
The fact is that this Government, this outfit, has so distorted the traditions of this place that starred questions no longer mean anything. We should go back to the practice that has existed for so many years in the House.

October 24, 1983
Order Paper Questions


Madam Speaker:: I know that it is a very old debate. I have heard it so often that 1 cannot remember exactly how it was resolved. However, I will look at all the arguments that were put forward and certainly try to clarify the matter for the House.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, might 1 now ask the Parliamentary Secretary when he intends to answer my question on the Order Paper?


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, both the one with the star and those without the star will be answered at the earliest possible moment. I will look into all of them.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, now that we have partially solved the matter about the starred questions, I am wondering about questions that are not starred and have been on the Order Paper for more than two and a half years. That is over 30 months.
1 asked a question, Question No. 2,329. It was put on the Order Paper on April 2, 1981. It is a simple question which asks who was invited to the banquet at which President Reagan spoke. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary cannot tell me that those lists were not prepared. They had to be prepared before the banquet. Can the Government not find them? I would like to get an answer to this question. If he is trying to hide the fact that he invited some defeated Liberal candidates and did not invite any defeated candidates from other Parties, he is not hiding anything: we know that. But we want to have the names. Surely we can get an answer after 30 months.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, I will certainly try to get an answer for the Hon. Member. However, it seems rather ridiculous because if he already knows the answer, why ask the question?


Mr. Young:: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what the possible delay could be in answering my question No. 5,315 on the Order Paper, which concerns some 40,000 Canadian pensioners. I raised this question with both the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare some weeks ago. The Minister partially responded to that very question on Friday. If she could at least verbally answer that question partially, why can I not have the written response?


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, if the Minister has responded partially, I will certainly see if I can urge her to provide both parts in writing.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I mentioned one part of my question. There are other parts to it as well. I would like a full answer to the question.
Furthermore, I learned in my earlier legislative days that you never ask a question if you do not know the answer.


David Charles Dingwall: I would ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I have a Private Member's Bill, Bill C-399, which has been on the Order Paper for some time. I would ask unanimous consent of the House to withdraw that Bill.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent to withdraw the Bill of the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-163, an Act to establish the Canadian Aviation Safety Board and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport.
Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would bring to the attention of the House Leader of the Official Opposition that all I would like to do at this time is have unanimous consent of the House to move consequential amendments.
After looking at the Bill as proposed by the committee, it had removed the word "general" from Clause 7. We noticed that the same word "general" must therefore be removed from Clause 23 and Clause 12 of the Bill.
I know that the committee itself has not moved the amendments, but I am sure, through unanimous consent, we can move these consequential amendments. This has no bearing whatsoever on the matter of the Bill. We could then proceed with debate and third reading, if we had agreement. I would be prepared to read this motion if you so agree.
October 24, 1983


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, that is perfectly satisfactory with us.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Minister has unanimous consent.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 1
That clause 12 of Bill C-163 be amended
(a)	by striking out line 23 on page 6 and substituting the following:
"and causes and recommendations"
(b)	by striking out line 32 on page 6 and substituting the following:
"tributing factors and causes and"
Motion No. 2
That subclause 23(1) of Bill C-163 be amended by striking out line 2 on page 14 and substituting the following:
"include in its report recommenda-"


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions agreed to.


Lloyd Axworthy: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased, as events have turned out, that we have an opportunity today to give final passage to Bill C-163, to establish the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. I recognize that this proposal receives the full endorsement of all Hon. Members of the House, and well it should because it is very important step forward in putting in place good protection for the Canadian travelling public and advancing our ability to pursue safety standards in the country. In so doing, I pay tribute to members of the Standing Committee on Transport from all Parties who worked very diligently to deal with the matter. In fact, they moved it along with a great deal of dispatch and a strong sense of support.
The Bill itself contains several major changes which will ensure that aviation safety is both seen to be and will be a matter of high priority and in which the most adequate and effective form of investigation will take place. The first major principle of the Bill is in fact the establishment of a board to conduct all investigations and inquiries into any aviation occurrence. The importance of that is highlighted in the findings of the Dubin inquiry which pointed out the inconsistency of having the Minister of Transport being responsible for the rules and regulations on safety and for investigating any
Canadian Aviation Safely Board
infraction of those rules. It is like being judge and jury at the same time.
The Bill will set up an independent board that will be able to work in an arm's length fashion from the Department of Transport and therefore be in a position to deal with any aviation accidents in a very open and clear manner without any sense or perception that somehow it is a matter about which the Department of Transport, the Government or someone else is trying not to provide all the facts. The independence itself is a very important matter.
The second major result of the Bill will be to ensure that inquiries and investigations will make public recommendations so that there will be no apprehension on the part of the travelling public or of any other member of society that something is being held back. In fact, the Bill gives the Safety Board the right to hold public inquiries and to request the Governor in Council to set up such inquiries under the Inquiries Act.
I am sure Hon. Members will know that just two weeks ago I established a public inquiry to look into the Gimli air accident where, because of the unusual circumstances surrounding that particular problem, there was a high degree of concern on the part of many people about follow-up disciplinary actions and the questions of culpability and responsibility. Therefore, a public inquiry was called which took an exceptional initiative. We had to clear it through Cabinet and take unusual action. The establishment of this Board will no longer require that to take place. The Board will have the authority to hold public inquiries or to initiate them. In itself that is a major improvement.
While the Board itself will be a three-person board, it will have a full range of experts to call upon to work on its behalf. Therefore, it will be able to offer a very extensive and comprehensive examination, assessment and judgment on any aviation occurrence. I want to make this clear because some questions were asked in committee and also in the Senate prehearings concerning its range, whether in fact it would involve matters dealing with search and rescue questions. Of course it would be in a position to examine aviation-related matters and would cover a widespread concern relating to air incidents.
Under the provisions of the Bill it would be my hope that we will be able to identify clearly the causes of many of the occurrences or incidents and have them reported so that we can prevent accidents. Unfortunately, we are too often in the position of responding after a tragedy occurs.
Also, under the provisions of the Bill the Air Safety Board will be in a position to have a clear monitoring responsibility or reporting responsibility so that if it begins to detect a pattern of problems occurring, it will be able to act before the tragedy occurs and to recommend to Government, to other agencies or airlines the necessity to change a technique, a pattern or a behaviour in order to prevent the occurrence. On that basis we hope the Safety Board will be able to act before the fact rather than after the fact.

October 24, 1983
Canadian Aviation Safety Board
Further, this Bill by its very definition deals with matters of aviation safety. That is a clear response to the Dubin inquiry. However, the Government does not intend to stop there. We recognize the necessity of setting up similar kinds of improvements in other modes of transportation. Hon. Members of the House will know that we presently have the Deschenes inquiry in the maritime area. I asked the Commissioner of that inquiry to see whether it might accelerate certain of its findings so that we will perhaps be in a position to take further action in the maritime area on the safety issue, whether it be a matter of melding it into this Board or whether it be a separate board. After discussions with Mr. Deschenes, he agreed to attempt to move his study forward at a faster pace so that perhaps we will be in a position in a few months to bring recommendations forward to the House and therefore to committee for further examination in the maritime area and to provide a full and comprehensive approach to the problems in transportation safety.
I do not think 1 have to argue this Bill at third reading. Since it is accepted, I will simply reiterate my appreciation for the support given to it by members of the Standing Committee on Transport. 1 endorse it to the House and to the Senate, so that we can get on with the business of ensuring that Canadians will be safe when they travel.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is difficult to step into a debate quickly, as we have to do this afternoon, and try to express in a very few moments the feelings of all my colleagues on a Bill as important as Bill C-163.
I want to commence my remarks by making a few references to the Hansard of this House over the past few weeks. Something has happened which I frankly find quite distasteful in reference to the Bill. For example, on September 19, the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) said, as reported on page 27247 of Hansard:
-there is a bill to establish a new air safety board presently before the Transport committee. If the Opposition were to co-operate we could get that legislation through very quickly and into the House so that we could have a proper mechanism under which public inquiries could be undertaken.
The next statement to which I want to refer is reported on page 27765 of Hansard for October 5 where, in answer to a question during Oral Questions put by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm), the Minister of Transport said:
As soon as the Opposition is prepared to pass it, we will be in a position to bring forward the aviation safety Bill.
Then, on October 20, as reported at page 28193 of Hansard, in reply to the Hon. Member for Peterborough in the adjournment debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis) said:
The Hon. Member might also speak to his leader because such an occurrence would be investigated by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board under Bill C-163. However, we saw in the House the despicable behaviour of the Official Opposition filibustering Bill C-155. Therefore we cannot bring in Bill C-163. We have an all-Party agreement to put it through the House quickly.
All three of those quotations are frankly, and colloquially, a crock.
This Bill was instigated initially by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) when, as Minister of Transport in the Thirtieth Parliament, he asked that the government inquiry deal with matters of safety in the air transportation field. After that report came in, the then Minister of Transport, now Secretary of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin), started the process to bring the Bill before the House.
He, as was his wont, confided with the members of the Standing Committee on Transport in the fall of 1982. While he may have been speaking in confidence at the time, there is no point in not repeating the fact that he told us that the Bill having to do with the Canadian Aviation Safety Board was ready and he was looking forward to an opportunity with his House Leader to get it before the House of Commons. Some months later, earlier this year, after a great deal of negotiation and pleading on our part to have that Bill brought before the House, finally the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) allowed it to be brought before the House on the second or third last day of June. We, as we had promised to do, passed it through the House rapidly. As I recall, we sent it to committee that very afternoon.
Unfortunately, there was a bell vote. The Committee could not finish its deliberations. We were unable to complete the deliberations on that Bill in committee prior to the House shutting down for the summer recess. On very short notice, we had appearing before us the President of the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association as well as the General Manager of that Association, the President and one other member of the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association and the senior executive officer, 1 do not know whether it was the President, of the Air Transport Association of Canada and others of that type who where willing to give the Committee the benefit of their advice and counsel. They came on very short notice.
I should go on record to point out that the President, if that is his title, of the Air Transport Association of Canada returned, as did the General Manager of COPA to the Committee meetings in the fall. They indeed acted as expert witnesses before the Committee.
The Committee, and certainly this Party, dealt with this Bill in the most expeditious and responsible way that could be expected of any Party. Never at any point have we held this Bill up in any way, shape or form. While I am at it, I might point out that the Transport Committee, as it has in the past, dealt with the Bill in a very non-partisan way. We debated amendments and dealt with the Bill in a manner that would put it through as it should have been a long time ago.
The Bill is a pretty good Bill. It was made better by the amendments made in committee. I want to pay full tribute to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), who prepared a number of amendments over the summer. He submitted them to the Chairman of the Committee and the Minister and his staff. Some were adopted by the Committee. The Bill was made considerably better by the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East who has sponsored Private Members' Bills over the years and in other ways
October 24, 1983

attempted to get before the House the principle of a safety board, not only for aviation but for other modes as well.
1 am delighted to hear the Minister point out that we are now going to be dealing, to quote him, in an expeditious way with a similar safety board for the other modes of travel. His use of the word "expeditious", given the fact that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East has been asking for this legislation for a decade or better, is a bit of a contradiction in terms. Nonetheless, it is on its way.
As I said, the Bill is not bad. It was made better and could have been made better yet. I will refer only to two further amendments that were put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, both of which, in the opinion of those Members who sit regularly on the Committee, would have made it better. I stress that because, as happens frequently in committee hearings, a number of Government Members were brought in and asked to vote just as they were told about a subject they knew absolutely nothing about. That is a shame because the two amendments were quite straightforward.
In the Bill there is a requirement that the Board report to the House through a Minister other than the Minister of Transport. Again, my colleague for Dartmouth-Halifax East put in his amendment that the report should come through the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan).
The purpose was very clear and simple. It would seem quite illogical that this most important Board would report through, for example, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, the Minister responsible for Mines or some other Minister, important though they may be, but who know little if anything about the intricacies of this matter. Therefore, to have this Board report through the chief law officer of the Crown, the Minister of Justice, because it deals with legal matters, seems to be entirely sensible and reasonable. 1 do not understand why it would be rejected.
Frankly, for a moment I thought about attempting at this late point to ask for unanimous consent to repeat a request of a Member of the House. I think, with his consent, I will not now do so. The Bill is that far along that we will see it through this afternoon. I am sure the Member would agree with me that while the legislation would be better and the results would be better by having his amendment in place, nonetheless we would rather have the Bill pass with this one fault than not have it pass at all. We will not take the chance of not having it passed. The amendment was very simple. I will not read it in detail, line after line.
The amendment was simply that any witness appearing before the Canadian Aviation Safety Board would have the right to the protection of the Canada Evidence Act. It is very simple, half a dozen words, but it has a lot of meaning. A great deal of stress was put on this in the Committee by the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) and others who felt that these few words in the amendment would have given people appearing before the Board a safety factor that they do not now have. It would take time, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, to see exactly what will happen. I guess the only
Canadian Aviation Safety Board
thing we can say is that, slightly flawed as it is, we would rather see the legislation go through knowing that a few months down the road we will have an opportunity to act as a Government and, if we see that it is necessary, we can put an amendment in place at that time. At that time, Mr. Speaker, they may well agree to it.
There is little need for further comment on the Bill. The Bill is, as I said, the result of years of effort on the part of the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East. It is the result of the definitive effort of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) as a former Minister of Transport. We have, indeed, taken too much time now to bring that Bill to fruition. I am delighted that we finally have it. I hope that, given the kind of co-operation that we always received in the Standing Committee on Transport, we will have the opportunity soon to implement much of the balance of the Dubin inquiry report.
I cannot resist, Mr. Speaker, putting a plug in here for a document on domestic air carrier policy that was prepared by that same Committee on Transport. This was unanimously approved by a committee that worked hard, day and night, for many weeks. It was submitted to the previous Minister over a year ago. To date we have had no report. We assume that the major appointment to the Canadian Aviation Safety Board will be that of a friend of the Government. We get used to that sort of thing. 1 suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is an extremely important post. We trust that when the Government starts looking for a friend to put in this prestigious position it will look very hard and choose one that is competent, because it is a particularly important post. It is needed now and it has been needed for some time.
With that, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our Party I will give our blessing to the legislation now so that it passes this afternoon.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) and my colleague for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis) in speaking on third Reading of this Bill.
I know that I am biased and other Members who were members of that Committee might be as well, but over the 15 years and some months that I have been here, and historically, Governments of both the old-line Parties have seen fit to accept amendments from, and take seriously and do something about the recommendations of, the Standing Committee on Transport, which used to be the Standing Committee on Canals, Telegraphs and Railways.
Mr. Speaker, I have noted particularly under the new rules that one of the reasons put forward for the House not sitting beyond six o'clock was that this would allow the committees opportunities to meet in the evenings. I have not checked the record, but my impression is that most committees have not been meeting in the evening. 1 can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Committee on Transport met evening after evening after

October 24, 1983
Canadian Aviation Safety Board
evening all summer, all fall and some of the spring. We did, in fact, function in the evening when the House was not sitting.
On this legislation, as my colleague for Prince Edward-Hasting has said, there was a determination by Members to achieve speeds parliamentary action on instituting legislation for the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. There was no disagreement on the principle of having such an institution. There was disagreement on some particular parts of the Bill; some were resolved by amendments and compromises. I suppose I could also say I am happy to see this Bill going through because crows are part of aviation. I might want to have some aviation safety board hearings on the crows that might get shot down if another Bill passes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Committee, the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Transport for accepting my amendment. There are two others they did not accept, but I guess nobody is perfect. The one that they did accept is welcomed, with a great sigh of relief, by the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association, the Air Traffic Controllers Association and the Canadian Association of Pilots and Owners. It was not the objective of the Aviation Safety Board to apportion any blame or liability in connection with aviation occurrences. After meeting with the officials and discussion in the committee we came up with the revised wording. I was assured by the officials and we agreed in the Committee that the wording would meet the objective that I had in mind with my original amendment.
There is much confusion about the words "occurrences, incidents and accidents". An occurrence can be merely that, or an occurrence can be an incident, or an occurrence can be an accident. Concern was expressed by those involved in the aviation industry-again I am thinking of the pilots, the air traffic controllers, the flight attendants, the Pilots and Owners Association, the Canadian Air Transport Association-that the purpose of an aviation safety board is not only to investigate an accident, an occurrence that is an accident, or an occurrence that could lead to an accident. This is where I had some difference of opinion with my colleagues in the Committee and with the Government officials. It is the responsibility in law of the Department of Transport and its air transport committee to investigate occurrences that could lead to an accident or an incident that would be dangerous. It is also its responsibility to look into the efficacy of regulations. My experience has been in another mode of transportation years ago. Certainly what employees in the aircraft industry, the aviation industry, the marine industry and other transportation modes have said is that too often there is a tendency on the part of either a Government or a corporation to do what is called "scapegoating".
There have been three or four incidents and accidents involving Canadian commercial aircraft in the past year or so. I do not want to interfere with grievances that might be going on between the Canadian Air Line Pilots' Association and Air Canada or any other grievance, but all this indicates to me that people are still looking around for someone to blame.
When I worked on the railway, Mr. Speaker, there was a mishap about ten miles away from where I was working and the chief dispatcher sent me over to handle train orders and such things. The section foreman at my place of work who handled about 15 miles of track, in three different years had been awarded the prize for having the best section in the whole 600 or 700 miles of track in the Medicine division. Every spring he would plead and beg and ask for enough new ties, rails, rail anchors, spikes, ballast, weed spray and other things to keep the track in a safe operating condition. Every year his requirements were cut back. Although he had been awarded the prize for the best kept section in the division, when that accident occurred in the snow and rain in April, there were eight carloads of grain in the ditch-two of them contained flax which at that time was worth about $3.50 per bushel- and after it was all over, that poor section foreman received 30 or 40 demerit marks because of a broken rail. That man never missed a day of work. Every time a train went by he followed it and inspected the track. Even on Saturday and Sunday when he was off duty, if there were extra trains, he would follow them. He got demerit marks. Still, he was blamed for not finding the broken rail. It did not matter that every year he had begged and pleaded for new rails, or complained that some of the rails in use had been made in 1905 or 1910.
Quite often the causes of transportation accidents, in this case an aviation accident, can be traced back to those who are in charge and have the final responsibility-the place where the buck stops. The pilot who saves lines while his aircraft is out of fuel deserves a medal; he does not deserve to be taken out of the service.
If the regulations governing training of ground crews and refuelling are not enforced sufficiently and properly, then mistakes will occur somewhere down the line and some poor pilot or some poor kid holding a jet fuel hose on the tarmac will be the victim. I submit that the Aviation Safety Board should follow matters up the line to determine who goofed in not making sure that everyone was fully aware of his responsibility and that he carried out those responsibilities so there is no scapegoating when we have a terrible occurrence, and aviation accident.
I appreciate the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings about the Canada Evidence Act. The failure of the Government to include that is going to leave the Government open to lawsuits down the road. It seems to me that two things will happen if the protection of the Canada Evidence Act is not available. First, some of the legitimate efforts of the Aviation Safety Board will not be carried out because witnesses who could shed light on the matter will be less than forthcoming, or not forthcoming at all. The Minister should have an amendment made when the Bill goes to the Senate. When it comes back to the House we will deal with it in an hour or two; there is no problem about that. But without the protection of the Canada Evidence Act, if a witness is forthcoming fearful of being blamed and ends up being or found liable even in part, I suspect he will go all the way to the
October 24, 1983

Supreme Court; not only on account of the Evidence Act, but on account of the Charter of Rights.
The purpose of a Canadian aviation safety board is not only to find out causes, why an accident happened, but to determine the chain of events, without laying any blame or assessing any liability, so that subsequently the courts or the lawyers for the parties concerned can assess matters and arrive at agreement, or the courts will settle the matter. I submit that that should be the limit of the work of an aviation safety board.
There may be incidents, such as near misses involving aircraft separation. This is where there may be some duplication of the legislation. The Department of Transport and the Air Transport Committee could be looking into occurrences and incidents that do not necessarily end in an accident. The whole matter of aircraft separation and ground movement on an airport while air traffic movement is going on is a concern. There was a problem about that recently. In the end, the Ministry of Transport has responsibility, and the legislation requires an investigation of occurrences that are incidents or occurrences that do not result in an accident in order that any deficiencies in the regulations or training, or whatever, are corrected, and corrected promptly.
The difference between the authority of the Department of Transport and the Aviation Safety Board is the difference of time. An aviation safety board may take months or years to arrive at conclusions, whereas investigations of incidents and occurrences-as was set out in the amendment that the Government did not accept in committee-are the responsibility under law of the Department of Transport and the air transport committee of the CTC and can be dealt with much more quickly. They can be very minor things, but they can be dealt with in a matter of days or weeks. The effect could be something like preventive medicine. If an Aviation Safety Board takes upon itself the investigation of an occurrence that did not result in an accident-and it can under the legislation-I submit that will do nothing more than give the Department or the CTC an excuse or may compel them to delay making a decision.
That is the problem with the duplication of effort that will occur as a result of the law as it stands and the provisions of the Bill. I hope that those who administer it and those who serve on the Aviation Safety Board will not be in conflict. I hope they will confine themselves to the area in which they are best qualified to act upon and to report on. If that is accomplished, Mr. Speaker, then we have done some excellent work with this legislation, because of the trauma a whole nation feels when there is an accident, whether or not there are any lives lost. A number of my colleagues and myself attended the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in New Zealand in 1979 when the DC-10 crashed at the South Pole. That whole country went into trauma. It was widespread around the world, but in that country itself the soul-searching and agonizing has gone on ever since. What did we do wrong? What could we have done to prevent that from happening? A piece of legislation like this, Sir, is important to the whole matter of safety for every nation.
Government Organization Act, 1983
I believe the laws of this nation are very deficient in railway health and safety practices, in highway health and safety practices and in marine health and safety practices. It took years to get survival suits for sailors on vessels sailing in the wintertime in the northern climate of Canada. It was to give these men a chance to survive and perhaps allow them to survive a few hours in cold water, and the years it took to get that done is no credit to this Parliament or this Government, and no credit to those who owned the ships and did not want to do it because it was too expensive.
We must do whatever is required with this legislation and the law as it already deals with transportation. When it comes to health and safety you cannot put price tags on the lives of people, whether it is a customer or an employee. The more we can do as a country to maximize safety and, more important, the prevention of accidents, whether by air or any other mode of transportation, the better we are as a society and the better we do as a Parliament.
I hope that the Minister of Transport will reflect upon the work of the Committee on this legislation and on other pieces of legislation. Perhaps he will allow the Transport Committee to consider Bill C-155 for a few months. He might then find himself with some legislation which will be acceptable to most of those affected by it.
We are prepared to support this legislation. I hope the Minister will ask the Senate to consider the amendment mentioned by the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings regarding the Canada Evidence Act, so that there will be no delay. The Senate can then return it, we can deal with it in an hour or so, and the Bill will be much improved.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION ACT, 1983 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-152, an Act respecting the Organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. Members are aware that there are eight motions on the Notice Paper at report stage of Bill C-152. I have examined these motions and have concluded that Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 should be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 1 will also dispose of Motions Nos. 2, 3, 7 and 8 as in each case the words "of State" are being inserted. Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 will be grouped for debate and voted as follows: (a) the question will be put first on Motion No. 6. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 6 will dispose of Motions Nos. 4 and 5; (b) a negative vote on Motion No. 6 will necessitate the question being put separately

October 24, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983
on Motions Nos. 4 and 5. We are grouping at this stage Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 7 and 8.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-152 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 1 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"4. A Minister of State for International Trade".
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-152 be amended in Clause 5 at page 2 by striking out line 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"5. A Minister of State for External Relations shall"
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-152 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 19 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
" 12. Subject to section 6, the Minister of State for"
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-152 be amended in Schedule 1, Item 21(b), Column II, at page 20 by striking out the words "The Minister for International Trade" and substituting the following therefor:
"The Minister of State for International Trade".
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-152 be amended in Schedule 1, Item 21(b), Column II, at page 20 by striking out the words "The Minister for External Relations" and substituting the following therefor:
"The Minister of State for External Relations".


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is an amendment I would like to have put forward, notice of which has not been given. 1 would like to ask the Chair to seek the unanimous consent of the House for notice to be waived on this particular amendment, which is as follows:
That Schedule 1 to Bill C-152 be amended by-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order, please.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council so as to hear what he has to say. We will then deal with the point of order, if there is one.


John Leslie Evans: The motion continues as follows:
(a)	adding, immediately after item 4 thereof, the following item:
"5. Canagrex Act 1980-81-82-83, c. 152
Paragraph 4(3)(c) is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(c) one from the Department of External Affairs." "
(b)	renumbering the subsequent items accordingly.
The intent of this amendment is simply to allow a member of the Department of External Affairs to sit on the board of Canagrex. That is the only intent. I am asking that the Speaker seek the unanimous consent of the House to waive notice and allow this particular amendment to be introduced.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council has asked the unanimous consent of the House to introduce at report stage a further amendment to the Bill. This can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There appears to be unanimous consent.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I was rising on a point of order as to your groupings, and that has to be done at this point. If the Bill is perused with some care, one will see that the Minister of State for International Trade and the Minister of State for External Relations hold two different offices. The Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) has a whole section under the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), whereas the Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) is frankly an assistant Minister and is so described in the legislation. He will do those things that are assigned to him by the Minister. Those two are not in the same category, therefore why should they be lumped together in one vote?


Mr. Bosley:: Lumped together for debate or for the vote?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Lumped together for debate and for a vote. This is what I find rather extraordinary. Someone has given this matter insufficient consideration, and I humbly submit that Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 7 should be together and, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley), says, Motions Nos. 2 and 8 should be lumped together. There is no way international trade should be confused with external relations. The two offices are quite different.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made a point of order. The Chair will take the Hon. Member's observations under careful consideration. Meanwhile the House can perhaps proceed on the grouped Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 7 provisionally while the Chair re-examines the point the Hon. Member has made.
So we invite at this stage debate on Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 7. The Chair reserves the right to make further observations having examined the argument the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has made. At this stage the Chair invites the Hon. Member for Edmonton West to confine his remarks to Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 7.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this Bill received some discussion in the House and I am the proposer of these amendments, although my colleagues whose specialties are in external relations and international trade and DREE will be carrying the bulk of debate in so far as the organization of Departments are concerned. I will accept the fullest responsibility, if any, with regard to the deletion of Clause 25 of the Bill because that is a different matter.
Let us look at the purport of Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 7, which have to do with the title of the Minister for International Trade. Clause 4 of the Bill says a Minister for International Trade shall be appointed. This is a mandatory requirement in the House that we should have a Minister and he shall assist the Minister for External Affairs in carrying out his responsibilities relating to international trade. Therefore, he is a Minister appointed to assist another Minister in carrying out a
October 24, 1983

portion of what you might call Canada's external relations. That is the trade side. Then the Minister of International Trade has certain responsibilities which may be given to him as they appear in Clause 12 of the Bill at page 4. But here there was an amendment introduced in committee, which met with unanimous consent, that Clause 12 would be subject to Clause 6 because:
A Minister appointed pursuant to section 4 or 5 shall act with the concurrence of the Minister in carrying out his responsibilities and shall make use of the services and facilities of the Department of External Affairs.
This is in effect taking the trade commissioner service and all those aspects of trade out of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and merging them into the Department of External Affairs. There will be an under-secretary of state for external affairs who will be the senior deputy minister. Then there will be the appointment of a person of a deputy minister rank who will be in charge of the administration of international trade. He will have the rank, I suppose, of an associate under-secretary of state for external affairs, to keep the title in the same sort of wording.
Then we have another appointee who is going to be called a Minister for External Relations, and that has to do with those amendments which appear in Motions Nos. 2 and 8. But he has no direct responsibilities except to assist the Secretary of State for External Affairs in discharging those duties which may be assigned to him by the Minister. This is what we have seen in practice. The Minister of State for External Relations is here in Ottawa and he becomes the spokesman for the Government on an international matter, non-trade, in the event the Minister for External Affairs is absent from the country or incapacitated.
In addition, the Minister for External Relations can also be a spokesman for the Minister for International Trade in the event that that individual is absent from the country, incapacitated or unable to speak on behalf of the Government. If the Minister for External Affairs is not able to act, for whatever valid reason, it is the Minister for International Trade who shall be senior in the Department and Acting Minister for External Affairs.
This was explained to the committee in some detail. However, strangely enough, there has been an odd choice of people for the jobs. The man who presently occupies the position of Minister of State for External Relations is the number three man in seniority in the Cabinet. In the absence of his Minister, who happens to be the Deputy Prime Minister and number two man in seniority in the Cabinet, it is the Minister of State for External Relations who speaks over his colleague, the Minister of State for International Trade, who would otherwise have spoken. That is one of those little accidents that occur in the combinations of seniority on the Privy Council list and the so-called seniority of the pecking order of that Department.
This combination has been going on for some time. As a matter of fact, we know that in Canadian posts abroad, the
Government Organization Act, 1983
trade commissioner has been under the active direction of the ambassador or head of mission for perhaps 12 years, if my memory serves me correctly. In fact, if one examines the list of heads of missions across the world today, one will see a good number of men and women whose careers began in the service of the trade commissioner. I think that this has proven to be a fair combination. If it had not, there would have been too much emphasis in the Department of External Affairs on what they call the straight or political people.
Another change that has occurred is that the heads of missions have assumed direct control over the representatives of any Department represented in a foreign mission. To that extent, immigration officers, for instance, fall directly under the head of mission. That is why there now exists this stupid anomaly. I say that it is stupid because it creates another layer of bureaucracy in which to lose people and to lose track of files. It creates another bureaucratic strata of immigration people in the Department of External Affairs. I see no reason for that and I have already run into that difficulty when trying to find a file. The people in the Immigration Department jealously guarded that file while I talked to a senior officer over on the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair hesitates to interrupt the distinguished Hon. Member. The Chair would like to make a ruling.
The Chair has considered the matter the Hon. Member raised previously. Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 7 are now being grouped for debate. It is assumed that a vote on Motion No. 1 will dispose of Motion Nos. 3 and 7 at the same time. Motions Nos. 2 and 8 are being grouped subsequently. A vote on Motion No. 2 will dispose of Motion No. 8.
The Hon. Member has been speaking for ten minutes on the first grouping. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to extend his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I was just winding up by showing that this very large empire has been created. To that extent, we are not impressed. I think that experience will show that the wheel can go around and perhaps ten years from now, Hon. Members in the House will be asked to approve the decentralization of this Department, as has happened to many a Department in the past.
I saw the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce being born back in 1964. It is now being buried. It is dying through this Bill. Trade has now disappeared into the Department of External Affairs, and I suppose commerce will now be included in the Department of Industrial Expansion. We do not know where domestic trade will go, but that is another question.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the question that was raised by the Hon. Member, with whom I have worked very closely and co-operatively over the years with regard to the

October 24, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983
titles of the Ministers, 1 believe we are dealing with those amendments at this time. I will deal with the reason for the change that has occurred in the titles of Minister of State for International Trade and Minister of State for External Relations.
Although the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) and the Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) will have identical powers as Minister of State, they will still be Ministers who assist the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). The purpose of identifying them as such and creating these positions through a new Act rather than through the Ministries and Ministers of State Act is to provide a higher international profile for these Ministers. It is important that they be seen as full Ministers in the international sphere even though they are Ministers of State for purposes of administration within the Government of Canada. That is precisely the purpose for the change.
If the Hon. Member considers the Bill very carefully, he will see that the powers of these two Ministers are restricted to those powers granted to Ministers of State even though they are not called Ministers of State. They will have a higher international profile and a higher profile within the configuration of the Department of External Affairs. That is why the titles were changed. The Hon. Member has asked that question and has proposed to change the titles back to Minister of State. The Government has certainly put these changes forward for a very good reason. We would be reluctant to see those titles revert to the more traditional titles for those Ministers.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I respond, Mr. Speaker?


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad if the Hon. Member would respond. If I may say so, and I expect the Hon. Member will agree with me, the Parliamentary Secretary has missed the point the Hon. Member was making.
As we in the House have pointed out previously here and in committee, one of the great anomalies in this Bill is that whereas the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) has a deputy minister under him, the Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) does not. In fact, the administrative chart indicates that the Minister of State for External Relations is hanging in limbo. We will deal with that in more detail when we reach the next two motions.
We understand the reason for this technical change in the title of Minister of State to Minister. There is no question in our minds about that. We also understand why the post of Minister of State for International Trade is a post that shall be created whereas the post of Minister of State for External Relations is a post that may be created. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary needs to worry about our understanding of these particular amendments as we have spent a very great deal of time on them in committee.
1 first addressed the larger problem in the House on June 22 of this year, as reported beginning at page 26,705 of Hansard. In the case of the grouping of amendments, the problem is
whether or not the Government made a wise decision when it decided to break up the old Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and put the industry part in the new Department of Regional Economic Expansion and put the trade part in External Affairs. As the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said, we are not too sure where the domestic commerce part will be put, but it will probably be put in the Department of Regional and Economic Expansion. Unfortunately, that is now a fait accompli.
I do believe that the reorganization which has resulted in this Bill was the brainchild of the former Secretary of the Privy Council. The Cabinet simply found it difficult to unravel this incredible creation that he had made. It will probably take the Department years to try to accommodate itself to these reorganizational changes as is quite clear when one examines the most recent chart issued by the Department of External Affairs.
With respect to attempting to combine trade with external relations, it will have two consequences. I simply want to repeat those consequences but not dwell on them today since it is a fait accompli and not much can be done about it. The first consequence of separating industry from trade is that the trade side is deprived of its clientele, so to speak, which is the industrial base in Canada. When the two were together one could examine the export performance of Canadian industries in particular and relate that directly to the trade needs and expectations of the Canadian Government. While trade commissioners were under the authority of External Affairs in their missions abroad, there was a very tight link at home between the people involved with trade and those involved with industry. Some of us fear that this linkage, which is so essential to the development of Canadian export industries, will be lost in this reorganization, and that industry, which is currently under the Department of Regional and Industrial Economic Expansion, will be narrow and inward looking rather than in the broad and outward looking tradition of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Indeed, I can remember when the Department of Industry was first created as a separate Department from Trade and Commerce in approximately 1964. It operated that way for a few years until it was recognized to be more desirable to combine industry with trade and commerce for the very reasons I have given.
Now, as a result of the elaborate ideas of the former Secretary of the Privy Council, they are separated again. In my opinion it is a mistake and will be shown to be so as this unravels.
There is a second reason why some of us are concerned about placing the Minister of State for International Trade essentially within the Department of External Affairs to assist the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). Rather than being a separate Minister in the Cabinet, we have a fear that trade orientation in the Department of External Affairs could possibly take over from orientation on policy and political matters, which is so crucial in all foreign policy
October 24, 1983

discussions and decisions. Indeed, the Minister of State for External Relations appeared before the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. He was asked before the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. He was asked if the message from this departmental reorganization was that our External Affairs would be much more dominated by trade orientation- although I think it will be unsuccessful-to which the Minister said, "Yes, that is the message."
Some of us would have thought that it would have been far better to leave trade and commerce with industry where it was operating quite satisfactorily. There were close links at the mission level in the field with External Affairs. If we wanted to give a particular message in foreign policy terms, it might have been more desirable to have a Minister assisting the Secretary of State for External Affairs in such matters as arms control and disarmament. I suggest that could have been the type of additional policy thrust that could be used and, in my view, should have been used.
These points have been raised before and I have already indicated that there is almost no further point in talking about them because this is a fait accompli. Since the reorganization is under way I can only hope that when it comes time for the Committee to discuss the performance of the new Department we will have more clear charts of the organizational structure so that we can better understand it and have a clearer picture of the process of integration that all of this reorganization is supposed to achieve. While we are skeptical at the moment, we hope that at least within a year there will be something good to say about this particular reorganization, and specifically on these motions in relation to the Minister of State for International Trade.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. 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 Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)-Garnishee, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act- Delay in proclamation, (b) Source of objections to proclamation; the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling)- Finance-Trust companies' restrictions on renewal of mortgages. (b) Request for legislation to assist home owners, (c) Government position; the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Energy-Radioactive land fill in British Columbia.
Government Organization Act, 1983



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-152, an Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, (as reported with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 (Mr. Lambert), and Motion (Mr. Evans).
John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, this is of some interest to members of the Committee and I rise to speak on this Bill because Members who were on the Committee know that this Bill has been the subject of some conversation in Committee. I hesitate to correct the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) but it is important to realize, in understanding this, that the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) does not have a deputy minister for international trade. There is a deputy minister for international trade who does not report to him but in fact reports to the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal), as was pointed out a moment ago by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. I will come back to his remarks because they reflect the nub of this issue.
To bring Members up to date let me say that some time ago the decision was taken to merge international trade with External Affairs. That decision has been taken and the reorganization has taken place. As the Hon. Member who preceded me stated, it is a fait accompli. In fact, when we were dealing with the diagrams with regard to this Bill at the committee, we discovered that the diagrams were out of whack with the Bill. The Government had to amend the Bill to bring it into conformity with the diagrams it was already circulating to its employees. This meant quite clearly that we were dealing with an administrative event after the fact. Let us accept that because we accepted it at committee.
When we were asking the question why we were changing the status of a Minister, it became very clear that there was more to this than the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary suggests. As the Government proposed, there was not to be a department of international trade within the Department of External Affairs, as there could have been, with the Minister at its head. There were some who believed that that was the streaming that made sense in order to preserve the integrity of the trade officers and the trade commissions. However, the Government, in its wisdom, chose not to do that but to make the whole thing report to a three-headed ministerial group, one of whom shall be the senior Minister and two of whom shall be junior Ministers. Quite reasonably, the Government used the Prime Ministerial power of appointment of Ministers of State to say that there shall be two Ministers of State under the Prime Minister's authority, one for international trade and one for external relations.

October 24, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983
That is when the problem arose. I should explain that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has the right to appoint, withdraw or change his Ministers of State at any time unless those Ministers of State have status in law as the head of a Department under which the departmental authority is given to them by the House. We had two Ministers of State. The question arose as to whether the position of the Minister of State for International Trade could be abolished? The answer was that it could. Then someone wisely said that we had better come forward and obtain legislative authority to say that there shall be a legislative mandate stipulating that there shall be somebody-and I will come back to this in a minute-for international trade under the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Then we got the Bill indicating that there shall be-not may be-a Minister of International Trade. The proposed amendment suggests that there shall be-and that wording is important because it protects, as was intended, the guarantee that there would be somebody responsible for International Trade-somebody responsible in the Department. The amendment before the House guarantees that because we believe there should be somebody in the Department responsible for international trade. However, the Government went further than that. It did not simply say that there shall be a Minister of State but, rather, it said that there shall be a Minister. The argument made in committee, as was made here a few minutes ago by the Parliamentary Secretary, was that in the world at large there needed to be a Minister as opposed to a Minister of State.
The role of the Minister of State underneath the Minister is generally used in the world. In fact, if we look to our Mother Parliament, we find that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or the British equivalent, has four Ministers of State under him, all of whom are widely accepted around the world in the export development role, the trade role, the general bilateral role between countries and the expected multilateral discussions, whether they be for foreign affairs, trade or whatever.
Then we return to the question of why Canada was doing it. In other words, why were we being asked to change a Minister of State who had no Department, no authority or no people, into a Minister? There are two answers to that question, which go beyond the question of the international role of developing trade. First, the incumbent of the post of Minister of State for International Trade did not like being called Minister of State; he preferred being called a Minister. It was not an international issue; it was a domestic issue. However, the most important part, after reading the entire Bill, was that under the Salaries Act a Minister of State who does not have a Department, as is the case of the two current Ministers of State, is not eligible for or does not count in the creation of the post called "Parliamentary Secretary". I will deal with the section on Parliamentary Secretaries in a moment, but it is relevant to mention it for the time being. Ministers of the Crown count in the creation of the post called "Parliamentary Secretary". The maximum number of Parliamentary Secretaries which can be
created today is equivalent to the number of Ministers of the Crown.
The Bill proposes to say that the maximum number of Parliamentary Secretaries shall be the number of Ministers of the Crown, plus the number of Ministers of State who have Departments to administer. Lo and behold, someone figured out that neither the Minister of State for International Trade nor the Minister of State for External Relations would count in the Parliamentary Secretaries section because neither of them had a Department. In order to create two more Parliamentary Secretaries, the Government proposes to rename the two Ministers of State as Ministers. It does not change one whit, as the Parliamentary Secretary admitted a few moments ago, the status, power, ability or legislative authority of any of the occupants of the positions to call them "Ministers". It changes the capacity of the Government to add two more folks to the roster or the Government's payroll who will be called "Parliamentary Secretaries". Everyone who knows the House of Commons knows that we are desperately running out of Liberals who have not already had the plum. That is the only effect of the change as it is proposed.
I suggest that Hon. Members opposite should read the amendment very carefully because it is designed and written to meet the concerns of the Department and those concerned with international trade. It is reasonable that there should be the word "shall" in the clause on appointment in order to ensure that someone exists who is charged exclusively, if under the Secretary of State for External Affairs, with the responsibility for international trade development. This is absolutely essential to the future of Canada, but it is not important in terms of the administration or the law. It does not make any difference whether that person is called a Minister of State or a Minister.
Hon. Members opposite may or may not choose to rise to debate this point. I ask them to bring forward evidence, because none was presented before the committee, to refute it. We have asked repeatedly those involved in international trade whether the issue was a guarantee that there would be somebody named in the law, somebody who cannot be withdrawn by the Prime Minister, somebody who has been created by an Act of the House of Commons, to work exclusively in international trade, given that trade was being merged into external affairs. The answer has been, "That is what we want. If we cannot have a full trade commission, if we must accept the merger, at least give us someone responsible for trade".
In this amendment we are saying that there shall be a Minister of State for International Trade, but there does not need to be another Parliamentary Secretary and, therefore, there does not need to be a word change from Minister of State to Minister, a Minister who will have no staff or authority, save that delegated in writing and over the signature of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, no Department, no people to administer.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I did not take part in the committee hearing, but I have heard what has been said this afternoon. I am amazed, with the television program from Great Britain, "Mr. Minister", having such
October 24, 1983

wide appeal across Canada, that the Government would suddenly create another Minister for no purpose. Can we imagine a Minister being asked, "What is your Department?", and the Minister saying, "Oh, I do not have one; 1 am sort of the runaround boy for the Minister", Who will say, "Yes, Minister"? Does the Minister say, "Yes, Minister" to the Minister's Minister? Where do we go?
This is an effort to add to the illusion of having a Cabinet Minister responsible for something when in fact we do not have a Cabinet Minister responsible for anything other than carrying the bags of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If that is what is intended, why does the Government not organize to have a series of Parliamentary Secretaries to assist the Secretary of State for External Affairs or, at the very most, a Minister of State to assist him? Surely to goodness to create another Minister who has no Department or direct responsibilities just so that he can be called a Minister makes no sense. That is what is being proposed by the Government in Clause 4 of the Bill.
Therefore, the amendment of my colleague makes eminent sense. We cannot go on forever trying to pretend that people are something they are not. The Government is pretending that it has a Minister in charge of international trade. Well, it does not. It has a Minister who is responsible to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It does not have a Minister for International Trade; it has a person who carries the suitcase of the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he goes on a trip. It may be someone the Minister can send on a trip to represent him, but the person is really not a Minister because the person has no direct ministerial responsibilities.
I, for one, feel that the reorganization Bill is wrong. We should have trade commissioners who are responsible to a Minister of trade. Trade matters should be followed up separately and distinctly from matters involving diplomacy, peace, war and the rest. Trade is perhaps one of the most important things we can be doing. Efforts should be made to have a Minister in charge of international trade as well as a Department of international trade. We do not need someone following the Minister of External Affairs around the world, somebody who is not directly responsible. We need someone who is responsible for ensuring that international trade is conducted for the advancement of the affairs of Canada.
This is a hopeless system. We have a Minister, but there is no Department for that Minister. The Minister is to assist the Minister in carrying out his responsiblities relating to international trade. What kind of law is that? If we are going to have a reorganization of the Government, we should rethink the whole Bill. If we want the person in charge of international trade as a Minister, as he should be, surely he should be responsible for international trade and have a Department. He should be the Minister of International Trade.
That is not what is happening here. This person who is to be called Minister is not a Minister, but a batboy. He is somebody who will carry the suitcases. He does not have the right
Government Organization Act, 1983
to make a decision, he does not have a Department to direct and he cannot commit the Minister. He is to assist the Minister. He is an assistant or executive secretary.
That is not a Minister, and let us not say it is. Let us call him a Minister of State. There is nothing wrong with having Ministers of State. In fact, this is probably an excellent way of organizing the Cabinet system. Let us not get carried away by calling someone a Minister who is not a Minister.
As the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) said, the only reason for this is so that the Government can appoint an extra Parliamentary Secretary. Why have a Parliamentary Secretary for a Minister of State? If there is a need for additional help, surely that can be obtained. Perhaps we need more parliamentarians involved on the Government side. We should involve Parliament more often, but it should not be necessary to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary to a Minister who is not responsible for anything other than to carry the bags of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
All that has happened here is that the current Ministers of State involving external relations and international trade feel a bit slighted by being called Ministers of State. They want to be full Ministers. That is too bad. Is there any reason why we should change the legislation of Canada in order to come to grips with the personal problem of two Ministers who should be Ministers of State because that is the way the organization chart works?
The statute we are now debating is not to be debated because of the personalities of the two Ministers of the Crown. They are Ministers of State. If their obligation is to follow the directions given to them by the Minister of External Affairs, that is their obligation in the Cabinet system. In that sense they are Ministers of State. Let us not call them Ministers, because they are not Ministers. They are batboys or servants, but not Ministers.
In the organization of Government, we must determine what is meant by the designation "Minister" and what is meant by the designation "Minister of State". It has been that the Minister of State is a Minister who assists another Minister, a sub-Minister or assistant Minister, if you like. We have a Minister of State for Finance to assist the Minister of Finance. That is proper. It is perhaps the way it should be organized.
I have some difficulty with this, but if it is the Government's organization pattern, then there should be a Minister for External Relations or External Affairs and Ministers of State as may be required to handle the External Affairs portfolio. Perhaps two or three Ministers of State are required to assist the Secretary of State for External Affairs. After all, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) is not very competent. We saw how competent he was in the Finance portfolio. Undoubtedly he needs a lot of assistance. He needs a great deal of help. There is certainly no call to have all of his helpers called full Ministers.
On that basis, it is totally wrong to follow through on the Bill in the way it has been presented. I commend to the House amendment No. 1 and the other amendments dealing with this

October 24, 1983
Government Organization Act, ! 983
issue in Clause 3. This is the way a matter of this nature should be handled.


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to take part in this debate on Motion No. 1 in the name of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). The speakers from this side who preceded me have made the points very well. I will enter into the debate from the position of looking at other Departments. If you read the Bill, you will see that it states:
A Minister for International Trade shall be appointed-
The active word is "shall", not "as may be required". It states "shall be appointed". If that was standing by itself without the knowledge that we have of the Department and of the reorganization Bill, it would probably be an acceptable amendment. If the Government wished to create a Minister, it would imply that there would be a ministry. We could all accept that.
However, it goes on to say, "Shall be appointed by commission under the Great Seal to assist the Minister in carrying out". That refers to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If that is put in context, the amendment that stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Edmonton West turns that around and states, "A Minister of State for International Trade", not a Minister.
Most people in Canada consider that a Ministry includes a Minister. If you look at the reorganization chart for the External Affairs Department, you see a fairly solid line connecting the present Minister of State for International Trade, who under this Bill will become a Minister. If you turn it around and look at the other side of the Department and look at the Ministry of State for External Relations, it is a very thinly dotted line connecting that part of the Department of External Affairs to the External Relations Secretariat as it now exists.
Mr. Speaker, if you would like to draw another conclusion with other Government Departments that we see now, under the Secretary of State there is a Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, and under the Department of the Secretary of State there is a solid hiving off with officials and with responsibilities under the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism. As a matter of fact, that Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, included in the Department of the Secretary of State, has more power than the Minister for International Trade, who will be assisting the Minister of External Affairs in his responsibilities under this Bill. He has more power to act as a Minister, to sign on behalf of his hived-off Department than we see under this amendment. Bill C-152 says that there will be a Minister of International Trade created, but there is no Ministry for that person to become involved in.
I guess you could go two ways; either there is a Secretary of State for International Trade and that is all, or there is a full Ministry. But under the Government reorganization Bill it is neither chick nor fowl. We are half in and half out. There is
not the responsibility, there is not in this Bill a full Ministry, yet we are pulling a hoax, we are trying to prevent a Member on the Government side from having that power and being a full Minister.
What would happen if there was conflict? I think, Mr. Speaker, we are all aware that in international affairs there can occasionally be conflict between trade and relations with other countries in the External Affairs Department. If there is some point of recognition by the Government through External Affairs of some action which could jeopardize trade, who would carry the message for the trade side? Would it be, as in the Government reorganization Bill, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Regan), who really is just an assistant to the Minister of External Affairs, or if it were set up as a separate Ministry, would they argue as equal Ministers or, as it is under our amendment, would it be the secretary of state for international trade who, all in all, would then be recognized purely and simply as being an assistant?
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, we can expect understanding and sympathy from the Canadian public when words really do not mean anything. Either a Minister is a Minister with a full Department or a Minister is a Secretary of State assisting another Minister in a Department. If we are going to be straightforward and factual, as in the amendment put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West, the Minister of State shall be called the Minister of State for international trade. There would not be any hoax. There would not be any use of words that misdirect people into thinking that there is a full Ministry behind the Minister for International Trade.
I hope that because the Government would like to represent itself as being straightforward so that there be no misunderstanding about its direction in this reorganization Bill it will accept the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West that the minister of state for international trade shall be appointed. When you say "shall" you are appointing a Minister without the full responsibility which most people in Canada expect from a Minister of the Crown.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few observations as well to the amendment put forth by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 7 are an attempt by my colleague to bring some common sense to a proposed Government reorganization. Of course we know it is not going to be accepted in spite of the fact that it would be in the best interests of the nation and it makes sense, just practical, on the street common sense. It will never come about because the Government, the Cabinet, has decided it is going to be a certain way and it does not matter what any of the Opposition Members think. The Government will be backed by its Members who will not understand one bit of what this is really about but will stand and rise because the Cabinet made the decision.
We also know that the reason for the decision to call these two gentlemen Ministers rather than Ministers of State is
October 24, 1983

really simply to flatter their personal egos. Where you were once a Minister to be seen to become a Minister of State is an enormous demotion in your personal status and image. Therefore, the whole operation of the Government of Canada is going to be shifted around so that two individuals can "keep their egos intact".
What a ridiculous way to run a Government. Surely the bottom line should always be what is in the best interest of the nation. I think the evidence is clear from many, many experts in the field that you simply cannot weld all of that world of external affairs where you have to deal with individuals in foreign countries and you have to deal with all sorts of political ideologies. You might, as a matter of external affairs, need to take a position in your country that is quite opposed to a position that you might take in trade. For example, throughout many wars in the past, where nations as a matter of external affairs have been in a state of war, they have continued at a different level to operate in trade. With both of those functions being under the Minister whom we normally call the Secretary of State for External Affairs, he has the total and final responsibility to try to weld these two together. It simply cannot be done. That is why we argue.
My friend, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenicarn) said that if we are going to go into this as a matter of principle we should have a separate Ministry for international trade. There are a lot of arguments to show that should be in place, because we are, as Canadians, a trading nation. We are a small nation with enormous resources. I think that most of our ordinary citizens genuinely do not appreciate the extent to which foreign trade brings wealth to this nation. Perhaps in the West we understand it because so much of our population is engaged in agriculture where the grain is exported directly. I would have thought that in manufacturing, most people working in plants, particularly the automobile industry, would realize that a lot of the automobile parts and cars are exported to the United States. At the grassroot level we do not seem to appreciate the fact that we are a tremendous trading nation and therefore surely that should be the most important of Departments.
What has the Government done? The Government has decided to make International Trade de facto a Ministry of State because all the powers and functions of the Minister responsible are the functions of a Ministry of State with no Ministry underneath, no departmental officials. Because of the ego factor we have to call them Mr. Minister so that they can feel important even though they do not have any Department. That is an incredible statement about the conduct of the national affairs of this nation by the Liberal Party and the Cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, this reorganization also shows the incredible departmental battles that go on below the Cabinet level of which most of us as individuals, even though we are elected here and attend committee meetings, have no idea. We had an example of that in the Canagrex battle where it was agricultural officials against IT and C officials. Unfortunately, again in that instance, Industry, Trade and Commerce lost the
Government Organization Act, 1983 battle. All their trade officers, who have done an excellent job in international trade, were lost. They lost the battle, and a new Crown corporation, Canagrex, was created which can put officers in the field. We have further emasculated the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and put the trade operation in with the Department of External Affairs. We are going to have an industry in Canada carrying on with no direct links with the trade function and the trade commissioners. At the same time, the Department of Agriculture will be operating on its own. We could have half a dozen officers in Tokyo all from different Departments and acting as agents for the Minister of State for International Trade, and none of them knowing what they are doing. There will be confusion and, as a result, export sales will be lost. I can say without fear of contradiction that within a few years, even months, we will be reorganizing that Department. When it costs us exports, it costs us jobs, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps then, when thousands more people are drawing unemployment insurance, the Government will respond and common sense will prevail.
If we had put this in the hands of half a dozen Members of Parliament and ignored the politics of it we could have found a solution which was far different from this one. The parliamentary task forces have shown that it is possible.
I hope the Government has listened carefully to the Canadian Exporters' Association which made the case, and very forcefully, that policy and trade cannot be mixed. That association is convinced that the officials in the field who should be signing the bottom line, will now spend their time developing papers to be sent back to Ottawa will be taken over by policy end of things. We will have to watch that very carefully but under the present structure, I think it is inevitable.
1 would ask my colleagues opposite to consider seriously Motions No. 1, No. 3 and No. 7, and not just follow the Government line. They should do what is right for the nation. It is clearly right for the nation that these people be called Ministers of State: that is what they are, de facto. Let us make them de jure what they are, de facto.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, last week in the House we had an example of an extraordinary situation of stumbling in precedence. The person who is third on the list in the Ministry is the Minister of State (External Relations). A question was put to the Minister of State (External Relations) (Mr. Pepin) which related to an external relations matter, namely the situation in Grenada. Up popped the Minister of State (International Trade) (Mr. Regan) to answer the question. The Minister of State (International Trade), is, at a rough estimate, about number 12 on the list of precedence. The Minister of State (External Relations) was in the House but he did not answer the question. The Minister of State (International Trade) answered the question on external affairs although the appropriate Minister, who is number three on the list of precedence in the Ministry, sat in his place and allowed the Minister of State (International Trade) to answer the question on international affairs.

October 24, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983
I do not know whether this Bill is intended to sort out these anomalies and to clarify the situation with respect to precedence. As I understand precedence, it is arrived at by the date on which various members of the Ministry take the oath to become Minister. Therefore, I find it more than a little strange that number 12 on the list should override number three on the list and answer questions relating to a matter to which number three on the list would normally be expected to reply.
I suppose this whole thing boils down to the Bill before us to try to sort out the organizational mess in the Department of External Affairs by creating three Ministers-which is what the Bill seems to suggest is required-in order to run that huge Department. At one time there were something in the order of ten under-secretaries and assistant under-secretaries in that Department. About a week or ten days ago when I checked 1 found that there are 42 assistant under-secretaries or associate under-secretaries or deputy under-secretaries. Perhaps the creation of Ministers rather than Ministers of State is to give Members of Cabinet sufficient authority to keep track of and control these numerous members of the top echelons of the Department of External Affairs.
I know there has been a movement in the direction of integrating the trade commissioners service in Ottawa with the Department of External Affairs and getting the officers who have served abroad in the trade commissioner service under the same roof as members of the Department of External Affairs when they are at home. The purpose of this is not entirely clear to me. Having served a fair number of years in the Department of External Affairs, it was always my experience that members of the trade commissioner service were well integrated in the operations of the mission abroad. I can cite five, six, seven or eight posts in which I served where that was the fact. The reporting was done directly by the trade commissioner service to the Department of Trade and Industry. Through weekly meetings the other members in the post were made aware of the efforts being made by which the trade commissioner service abroad would find markets for our products.
Now we find that instead of remaining with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the trade commissioner service officers have been shifted, for administrative purposes in Ottawa, into the Department of External Affairs. We find that in order to look after their affairs in that Department, we need a Minister of State (International Trade) or, as this legislation suggests, a Minister for International Trade. Perhaps the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the Minister of State (International Trade) is not able to control the trade officers who are under his jurisdiction and, therefore, he has to be a Minister. This triple Ministry-tricephalous is a good word- is a three-headed monster, if I can translate for your edification, Sir. The Department of External Affairs is a threeheaded monster. There is no shortage of monsters. A couple of them have been picked and now they want three of them, and they have decided they shall be called "Minister Monsters", and this Bill is intended to create those Ministers.
The amendments which have been proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), is to restore the designations which they ought to have since they are not really in charge of a full Department. They should continue to be called, for example, "Minister of State for International Trade". That eliminates the brackets. At least it does that, Mr. Speaker. I commend the Hon. Member for bringing forward an amendment which would eliminate those brackets, as they appear in the list of Ministries in the Wednesday Hansard. The same applies to Motion No. 3, "The Minister of State for", and again Motion No. 7, "the Minister of State for International Trade". There are three Ministers in one Department and it is described in subsequent clauses of the legislation that the "Minister" shall do this, and the "Minister" shall do that. It says in Part 1(2):
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (in this Part referred to as the "Minister")
Now they are introducing two additional Ministers in that section. Perhaps the best way to categorize this legislation is that it is very sloppily drafted. It bears all the marks of an organizational whiz-kid who decides that he wants to reshuffle matters, possibly to the satisfaction of the recipients of those titles, so that they may satisfy their egos that they are indeed Ministers and not just Ministers of State.
I do not know whether one Minister or the other was instrumental in ensuring that this Bill was drafted and brought forward in its present form. However, I believe if we were to look at the table of precedents in the most recent Wednesday's Hansard, we would find that there are in fact nine Ministers of State responsible for a variety of different areas of Government; External Relations, the Canadian Wheat Board, International Trade, Economic Development, Science and Technology, Multiculturalism, Fitness and Amateur Sports, Small Business and Tourism, and Finance. Are we going to be faced, Mr. Speaker, in the days to come, with the requirement that all these Ministers of State, some of whom have Departments under their jurisdiction, some of whom have not, will be required to be called, for example, Minister for Fitness and Amateur Sports? The Minister of State for Finance will be in some difficulty because we already have one Minister of Finance, and that, Mr. Speaker, if I may suggest, is quite enough.
I do find it odd that we should today be debating this particular matter. Incidentally, I should add that a little advance notice on this would have helped. I had a number of notes on the reorganization proposals for the Department of External Affairs which I had hoped to be able to use in any discussion in the House on this particular Bill. I find, however, that those notes have somehow or other disappeared with a lot of other papers and have become mislaid. Consequently, I am not able to focus on these amendments to the extent I feel they deserve.
In the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, we cannot have a threeheaded Department of Government. I think we are asking for trouble. I think we should decide now to accept the amendments, and I do hope that Members on the other side will
October 24, 1983

consider the disputes which can arise as to jurisdiction within that Department. At one time, 1 believe, members of that Department could hold up their heads with pride at the job they were doing. Now, unfortunately, I have to say that altogether too many of them are just waiting for the day of their retirement. They are putting in their time, and that is a dreadful thing to have to say about public servants. They are not putting in that energy, that professionalism for which they have spent many years in training, into that particular Department. They are having to juggle themselves and rearrange themselves and unfortunately, 1 must admit, jockey for positions within that Department rather than attend to the matters to which they originally, with a great degree of dedication, were prepared to commit themselves to serve Canada both at home and abroad.
In support of my contention that they are having to jockey for position, I would suggest to you that some of the most highly trained, some of those with the greatest of experience, are serving at home because they find that the possibilities of getting along in the Department are much more likely to occur if they are within the range of one or other of these Ministers-it used to be just one. Now they will have to deal with three Ministers to make sure they have jockeyed in the right direction.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do urge upon Hon. Members opposite that they consider most seriously the amendments which have been put forward by my colleague, and that when the time comes to vote on these amendments, they will vote in favour.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to draw something to the attention of Hon. Members and to the Chair. There somehow seems to have arisen in Motions Nos. 7 and 8 some words which, frankly, result in a bit of nonsense. The purport of Motions Nos. 1 and 2 is to create positions, or to insist that there be positions of Ministers of State. Ministers of State are normally paid under Section 5 of the Salaries Act if they have a departmental responsibility. They are known as Ministers of State. If one looks at the amendment sections as proposed by the substitution, one finds the words:
-and substituting the following therefor: "the Minister of State for International Trade".
One sees that one is amending Section 4 of the Salaries Act which deals with Ministers only. In other words, not Minister of State, but "Ministers".
I do not know where this came from, where the gremlin crept in, because the memorandum of amendments which I signed at the Table did not include these two amendments. I do know, however, that there was a phone call to my office which suggested that something had to be done, there had to be something done to Schedule I. Thanks to the vigilance of the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) who alerted me to the, shall we say, double-whammy of these amendments, and with the consent of the House I would amend my Motions Nos. 7 and 8. Motion No. 7 would be amended in line 4 by stopping after the word "Trade", period.
Government Organization Act, 1983
There is no substitution. Motion No. 8 has not yet been called but I propose to do the same thing after the word "Relations".
Therefore, I move:
That Motion No. 7 be amended by deleting in line 4 thereof all the words after "Trade".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member seeks the unanimous consent of the House to amend his Motion No. 7 such as to leave in the words "the Minister for International Trade"-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And strike out everything else.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: -and strike out everything else. I apologize to the Hon. Member but could he indicate to the Chair again what he wants to do with Motion No. 8?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Strike out everything after the word "Relations". But only when Motion No. 8 is called.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As the Hon. Member indicates, we are not yet at Motion No. 8.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) seeks to amend his own motion such that the words following "The Minister for International Trade" would be struck out. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is, of course, seeking other Members who may wish to enter the debate on Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 7. Otherwise I will put the question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I should indicate that it was Madam Speaker or the Deputy Speaker who ruled that Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 7 would be grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 1 will also dispose of Motion No. 3. In that event I will put the question on Motions Nos.-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 7.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is not so indicated here. Therefore, I will put the question on Motion No. 1, and in due course that may or may not dispose of Motions Nos. 3 and 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.

October 24, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I declare the motions lost on division.
Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 7 negatived on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In accordance with the ruling it would appear that the motions for debate at this point will be Motions Nos. 2 and 8. They are grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 2 will dispose of Motion No. 8. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this deals with with position of the Minister for External Relations. In committee an amendment was introduced by the Government where, in Clause 9(2) the deputy minister shall be known as the deputy minister for political affairs. I do not know how many more types of affairs we are going to have but we have a Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), a Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin), and his deputy minister for political affairs. I know I am facing up to the Government in its monolithic thinking where the Cabinet has said that this is going to be and the voices line up behind it. We have had the explanation for the creation of a Minister for International Trade. That takes the Trade out of Industry, Trade and Commerce and of course the Industry part is going over to a Minister of Industrial Development, and Commerce just dies. Except that, initially, the Commerce part dealt with business in Canada, but somewhere along the line no continuing emphasis has been maintained in that connection.
As I explained on Motion No. 1 which dealt with international trade, we have in this particular instance a Minister whose duties could quite conceivably be discharged by an efficient Parliamentary Secretary, in fact, a second Parliamentary Secretary if the Minister is so over-loaded due to the indolent nature of the Minister. We know he is not the most active and energetic of men, a man who rather than face up to an issue will duck out and not appear. This we have seen time and time again when he was the Minister of Finance and in other capacities. I have known him for 20 years as a Minister and frankly that has been one of the characteristics of his administration. So I do not see the necessity for having these Ministers, and quite clearly, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans) said, these appointees are being given a title so that in the foreign pecking order they shall rank in title as full Ministers.
Then we have the Minister for External Relations. Well, if you did not know the difference, you might think he was the Secretary of State for External Affairs. But on the international level there is that ultimate pecking order and that is what
we are being asked to look after in this particular amendment. In addition to which we are raising his title to that of a Minister under Section 4 of the Salaries Act so that he may be paid not only his salary as Minister but he shall be entitled to a Parliamentary Secretary. You see, Section 5 of the Salaries Act, Mr. Speaker, covers Ministers of State. Ministers of State who do not have as a specific assignment a section of a Department are not entitled to a Parliamentary Secretary. For example, the Minister of State who is responsible for financial institutions is not entitled to a Parliamentary Secretary. This particular appointee is being classified as a Minister for External Affairs so that he may have a Parliamentary Secretary. This Bill could become popularly known as the financial emancipation of the Liberal backbenchers Bill because it creates a maximum of five more Parliamentary Secretaries.
Section 25 of the Bill will allow for some Parliamentary Secretaries to be named in the other place because, apparently, somebody must be able to reply there beyond the two or three Ministers who are there already, none of whom have any departmental responsibilities. I suppose therefore that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) would like to have a nominee Parliamentary Secretary in the other place. Perhaps the Minister of State for External Affairs might like one as well.
I know that there will be two or possibly three Parliamentary Secretaries created by this particular Bill. I would like to reserve my argument on that, Mr. Speaker, until we get to the appropriate section. That is the only reason for the provisions of this Bill. They are purely cosmetic and will not improve the operations of the Department one jot or tittle. The Department of External Affairs will not be improved one iota by reason of the possible appointment of a Minister who will be called a Minister for External Relations.
Under the Ministries and Ministers of State Act there is already the power to appoint a Minister of State. This new Act allows for the appointment of a Minister for External Relations. He will be present in full cutaway coat and striped trousers if need be. That along with the creation of more Parliamentary Secretaries is the purpose of this Bill. Of course, the creation of more Parliamentary Secretaries is within the discretion of the patronage of the Liberal backbench. In the maximum of two years that it takes to rotate the Liberal backbench, somebody somewhere will have been able to collect something during that time.
There are presently 35 Ministers. There were 36 Ministers until one appointment went off like a damp squid. There are 27 Parliamentary Secretaries. There is now the potential for another five Parliamentary Secretaries. So the score in the football game will become that much closer. It will only be 35 to 32.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, if I could see something in these provisions which would improve the Department of External Affairs, I would agree with them. However, there is already a Minister of State, and my amendment proposes that
October 24, 1983

he shall exist. That could have been done under the Ministries and Ministers of State Act. The responsibilities of the Minister would have been the same. There would have been no changes, but because of the title that is to be given to this Minister, he may parade on the square in full dress uniform and will become entitled to a Parliamentary Secretary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich)):: Before 1 recognize the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett), I would like to remind the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that there was no seconder for the motion which was put before us. It would be helpful to the Table if we could have a seconder.
I recognize the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) as seconding the motion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I at this moment bring forward the remarks I made with regard to Motion No. 8 which require amendment? 1 do not think I have to repeat the words, but the amendment, with the unanimous consent of the House, is to delete all of the words after the word "Relations" in line 4 of Motion No. 8 which is standing in my name.
I therefore move:
That Motion No. 8 be amended by deleting in line 4 thereof all the words after "Relations".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House has heard the Hon. Member for Edmonton West and it has heard the amendment he has proposed with respect to Motion No. 8, which was identical to that which he proposed for Motion No. 7. That amendment is that after the words "Minister for External Relations," all other words in his own amendment be struck out. Dealing with the seconder to the amendment, I thank the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). It was moved by Mr. Lambert and seconded by Mr. McKinnon (Victoria) as I have indicated to the House. It requires unanimous consent, and I presume that the House is prepared to give that consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: May I indicate that with respect to Motion No. 7 we simply lack a procedural formality and that is that there was not at that time a seconder for the motion. I would ask the House if it is acceptable that the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich be the seconder on that motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, while we are tidying up the motions of the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), 1 wonder if I could draw to his attention the fact that he has made what I am sure is an inadvertent mistake in Motion No. 2. He has said, in relation to line 2 of Clause 5 of Bill C-152, that the following should be substituted therefor: "A Minister of State
Adjournment Debate
for External Relations shall." Of course, I am sure that the wording that he intended was: "A Minister of State for External Relations may."
It is almost six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may continue my remarks tomorrow and perhaps I may remind the Hon. Member for Edmonton West that Clause 4 which reads "shall" was deliberately made to read "shall"; i.e., it was mandatory that there be a Minister of State for International Trade. Clause 5 reads "may" because the Minister for External Relations may or may not be appointed. A great many of us were confused by this and it was explained to us in committee. As a matter of fact, I very much hope that Conservative Members are not saying that a Minister of State for External Relations must be appointed. We do not think there should be any such Minister at all, but if the Hon. Member inserts the word "shall" as he does now, then it will become obligatory to appoint a Minister of State for External Relations. I do not think that is what the Hon. Member intended. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: No, I would prefer it if the Hon. Member did not call it six o'clock for a moment. So that debate may continue in an orderly way tomorrow, I would call upon the Hon. Member for Edmonton West so that we can clear up the matter and move on at six o'clock.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the answer to that question is that if the word was not present, the hon. lady would not be talking about this amendment and could not put forward her argument about not appointing the Minister.


Pauline Jewett: I think the Hon. Member has missed my point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case, I think the two Hon. Members can confer on this matter tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, on September 16, 1983, I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mac-Guigan) a question concerning a delay in proclaiming Bill C-38. I now rise to participate in this adjournment debate because I find myself shocked and distressed at the treatment Bill C-38 has received since it was passed by the House on June 18, 1982. It is a year and a half since this House passed the Bill and it has not yet been proclaimed in all parts.

October 24, 1983
Adjournment Debate
The Minister said in his answer, and quite truthfully, that the handling of this Bill was a "spectacle which might be considered rather unedifying for the people of the country." I am not certain that many people in the country are aware of this Bill. It mainly affects single parent families whom I do not expect have much time to watch the procedures of this House and look for this legislation. 1 would assume that the Minister responsible for the status of women is totally unaware of the effect the delay in proclaiming this Bill has on a very large group of women.
Part I of the Bill was proclaimed and is not part of my objection. Parts II, III and IV have not yet been proclaimed and consequently are not in effect after 17 months.
Let me read the title of the Bill so that Members will understand what I am talking about. Bill C-38 is:
An Act to provide for the garnishment or attachment of Her Majesty in right of Canada and for the diversion of pension benefits payable by Her Majesty in right of Canada under certain enactments.
The final paragraph of the Bill deals with proclamation. Clause 56 states:
(1)	Part I shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.
(2)	Parts II, ill and IV shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.
I am particularly concerned that Part II, which deals with diversion of pension benefits to satisfy financial support orders, has not been proclaimed 17 months after it passed.
In general terms, Part II provides for the diversion of pensions to provide enforcement of financial support orders against pension benefits payable pursuant to the Superannuation Acts and like enactments referred to in the Schedule.
After waiting several months for Parliament's will to be done, I began to ask questions regarding this Bill. I believe I questioned the former Minister of National Defence on this matter at five or six consecutive meetings of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. It became apparent that a stall was being imposed on Parliament by its own bureaucracy.
In response to one of my inquiries, I received a copy of a memorandum sent to the Minister of Justice on June 20, 1983, which said:
Part II dealing with pension diversion is to be proclaimed at some point in the future. No time has been set for proclamation because of the need to iron out technical problems relating to the pensions of MPs and Senators.
That was signed by a departmental assistant in the Department of Justice. In all my inquiries about this Bill and its proclamation, I have never found a Senator or MP who questioned this Bill. In fact, they were quite unanimous in support of the Bill when it was before Parliament.
Another example of the attitude taken of Parliament by the bureaucracy in the case of this Bill is contained in a letter which the Minister of National Defence sent to me in reply to a question as to why a court order diverting 50 per cent of an annuity had been paid at a fixed dollar amount instead of rising with the indexation of the pension. The Minister of National Defence stated:
The legal advisors are of the opinion that 'Armed Forces pension income' refers to the CFSA annuity only and does not apply to any increase payable under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act.
Part II of Bill C-38, which has not been proclaimed, indicates at page 9 that "pension benefit" in subparagraph (g) "includes any benefit payable under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act or the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act in respect of that pension, annual allowance or annuity." In other words, it means that indexation will be applied to the payments made to the families.
The case before the courts which the Minister mentioned concerns only Part I of the Bill which has been proclaimed, garnishment of wages. I cannot see any reason a court action concerning garnishment should be used as an excuse for continuing delays in proclaiming Parts II, III and IV which deal with diversion of pensions to satisfy court orders for family support. It is quite different than garnishment of wages.
Members of Parliament knew what they were doing when they passed this Bill divesting themselves of an archaic financial self-protection device which was neither suitable nor equitable in this day and age. The Senators and the Crown agree, and what we have been faced with is a monumental affront to Parliament in this continuing war between democracy and bureaucracy.


Mr. A1 MacBain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, on September 16, 1983, when the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) questioned the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mac-Guigan) in the House about the delay in proclaiming Parts II to IV of the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act, litigation was proceeding in a local Small Claims Court. At that time the Minister indicated that perhaps further legislative clarification as to whether or not Members and employees of Parliament were affected by that legislation might be required. On October 12, his Honour Judge Tierney of the Seventh Small Claims Court of the Judicial District of Ottawa-Carleton ruled that the salaries paid to employees of the House of Commons may be garnisheed under the Act.
The decision on whether or not to honour the decision of the Court or to pursue an appeal is in the hands of Madam Speaker and the employee in question. I would simply note at this point that the Minister indicated that should legislative action be deemed necessary, he would be consulting with the House Leader and Opposition critics.
When Parliament passed Bill C-38, of course it fully intended that Members and the staff of Parliament should be subject to the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act. All of us want to ensure that this intention is carried out. If legislative action is required, I am certain the House will act quickly and expeditiously.
October 24, 1983


FINANCE-TRUST COMPANIES' RESTRICTIONS ON RENEWAL OF MORTGAGES. (B) REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION TO ASSIST HOME OWNERS. (C) GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, on October 14, as reported at pages 28027 and 28028 of Hansard, I asked questions of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) regarding the Interest Act and the fact that some trust companies and others were including a clause in their mortgage renewal loan agreements which required applicants for mortgage loans to waive their rights under Section 10 of the Interest Act.
I should like to quote from a current mortgage document. It reads:
You expressly waive any right of prepayment you now have or hereinafter may have pursuant to Section 10 of the Interest Act (Canada) and/or any similar federal or provincial legislation permitting prepayment prior to the maturity date of the loan agreement.
The Government of Canada, in its wisdom, caused to be passed an Act entitled the Interest Act. That Act gives a right to a mortgagor who wants to prepay a mortgage. The Provinces of Ontario and Manitoba have passed similar legislation which gives rights of prepayment to a mortgagor. The essence of Section 10 is that one may prepay a mortgage which has a five-year or longer term upon the payment of three months of interest penalty.
It now appears that a federally-chartered trust company can write into a contract a clause which strips the rights given a home owner or mortgagor under legislation passed by the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures of Ontario and Manitoba. I say that this is wrong. No corporation or other organization should be allowed to take from a citizen of Canada a statutory right passed by the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the Provinces and Territories.
Further, there was an action before the Supreme Court of British Columbia that dealt with the five-year period set down in Section 10 of the Interest Act. An insurance company claimed that the mortgage date for determining the five-year period set forth in Section 10 was the date of the Mortgage Renewal Agreement. By that strange logic you would never be able to exercise your rights under Section 10. By juggling the renewal date, they could arrange it so that the five-year anniversary date would never occur.
The B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the effective date of the mortgage for purposes of calculating the five-year period was not the renewal date, but rather the date the original mortgage document was signed.
To counter the ruling of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, some trust companies are adding a sentence that reads "The original mortgage is deemed to be dated as of the maturity date of the existing loan". This sets aside the ruling of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. There was no challenge to the ruling of the court. No appeal was launched. They merely added 17 words to a mortgage renewal document that sets aside the ruling of the court.
Adjournment Debate
Where is this leading us? Is the Government and Parliament going to allow a handful of trust companies to write into their contracts provisions that take from one party in the contract a right of prepayment set forth in federal and provincial statutes? Is this what Canada is all about? Are trust companies above the law? Can they, by adding a clause to a mortgage contract, set aside the decision of the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the Provinces of Canada as expressed in statutes passed by those bodies?
Any commercial or private contract, mortgage, or other instrument that, through its languages, expressly removes a right given to one party in a contract by federal or provincial statute should be prohibited by law.
It is no defence to say the matter would be defeated in a court of law. That view only compounds the seriousness of the actions of some trust companies. It smacks of manipulation of the law, for it says that if you, the mortgagor, have the time and the money, you can pursue a decision through the court and thus exercise your right under the Interest Act. Otherwise, you are bound by the terms of the contract even though they may be declared void by an action in a court of law.
We are not dealing here with a corporation with resources. We are dealing with a home owner who has a mortgage, the interest rate of which has been increased, putting financial stress on the home owner. You may wish to argue that the financial condition of the plaintiff is of no concern to the court. Whatever your argument, it should not be lawful for a corporation or anyone to cause one party to a contract to be stripped of his or her rights in that contract.
There are those who would have you believe that a contract is a contract and the matter ends there. In fact, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) has said as much; at the same time expressing her concern for the mortgagor.
Again, this is no defence for the trust company. We have written proof that the waiving of rights under Section 10 of the Interest Act was not discussed with prospective mortgagors. The addition of an interest differential charge was not discussed during the mortgage negotiations. In other words, most of the mortgage negotiations between some of the trust companies and the home owner seeking a mortgage were less than truthful.
We did have The Trust Companies Association before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. They were able to respond to a question on this subject, but the Chairman of the committee ruled that we must pursue other matters as The Trust Companies Association was before the committee on another subject.
We must continue to ask questions and take part in these debates and bring this matter to the attention of Parliament. Sometimes I wonder if anyone is listening out there, if anyone really gives a darn or if this matter will be frustrated along until, through the passage of time, the mortgages will run to term and the trust companies involved will have been successful in the largest rip-off in our history.

October 24, 1983
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Elon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) certainly shares with me and the Government considerable concern on this particular issue. I personally welcome the inquiries he has made and the initiative he has taken on this, and the opportunity he has given us to discuss government action and future courses of action.
I was with the Hon. Member on the Finance Committee when we deliberately raised this with the trust companies. I think he heard, as I did, that this is really a balancing act that we are trying to get across. On the one hand, as he pointed out very articulately, we have a problem with potential fraud or at least misleading innocent home owners. On the other hand we do not want to solve those specific cases by ruining the whole mortgage market. The Hon. Member knows that full well.
What has the Government done in this regard? First of all, 1 would remind him of the ongoing operation of the Canada Mortgage Renewal Plan. I personally helped one of my own constituents to get a $3,000 grant under this scheme to lower the impact of the mortgage payments on their family income. That grant still stands. It is a good safety valve for individual home owners.
Second, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) indicated that she has the director of investigations and research checking, under the Combines Investigation Act, whether some kind of criminal or misleading behaviour has taken place.
Third, the Government has made it clear that it wants to review the Canada Interest Act to strengthen its provisions in order to avoid these kinds of misleading operations in the future.
Finally, we must remind all Canadians that they are signing a contract; that they are binding themselves.
I understand that there were about 750,000 people who took out high interest rate mortgages during the real crisis period of 1981 and 1982. Of those, we estimate that approximately 80 per cent or 600,000 took short-term mortgages, and that those people are seeing their problem solved now because mortgage rates have dropped so dramatically.
As for the other people, the vast majority knew what they were doing. They wanted the security of a four or five-year mortgage and they undertook that deliberately. The balance are people whose cases we have to investigate without destroying the whole mortgage market, but without allowing improper or misleading practices to continue I join the Hon. Member for Burlington in his concern about this issue.


ENERGY-RADIOACTIVE LAND FILL IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on September 23 I rose in the House to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) regarding a land swindle that took place in Surrey in
1975. A constituent of mine innocently bought some valuable commercial property for his business only to find out later that the land fill on that property was material brought in from outside British Columbia which contained low level radioactive thorium, with the result that everyone in the surrounding area, and certainly the employees of the company working there, are very concerned about the exposure they face from that low level radiation. It may be that there is no immediate health danger, buit it may be that there is.
I have been working on this problem since 1978. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I have a letter dated September 2, 1978, from the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, one Mr. Alastair Gillespie of "coalgate" fame.


An Hon. Member:: Cheap shot.


Benno Friesen: He states, in the last paragraph of his letter: "I have asked the AECB to give priority consideration to the resolution of this matter in the interest of the concerns of the Surrey community". That was in 1978. If that is the speed with which this Government operates it is no wonder the country is in the mess it is in. At the time I did not know the interrelationship of that particular swindle.
A former Member of Parliament of the Liberal Government, one Mark Smerchanski from southern Manitoba, owned a company called Fundy Chemical. He represented southern Manitoba from 1968 to 1972, but was defeated in the 1972 election. Knowing what he was doing, he foisted that polluted land onto an innocent customer. As soon as the customer found out what he had bought he took Mr. Smerchanski to court. At the beginning of the court proceedings Mr. Smerchanski had $250,000 in a Fundy Chemical account, but by the time proceedings were finished the account was bone dry with the result that the company received nothing and is still waiting. Even though the customer won an $800,000 settlement, he has received nothing from Mr. Smerchanski.
I ask the Government whether it understands the kind of financial implication this has for a company? Does it realize that all the financial structure of a company like this is based on the value of its property? If that property is worth $800,000, or $1 million, according to the court's settlement, and he takes the value of that property to the bank as collateral for a loan and the bank realizes the land is virtually valueless because it is contaminated, how much would the bank give him? The whole financial structure of the company is raped because this one man violated a sense of trust with a customer.
Is the Government taking all these years to deal with the problem because it has a cozy relationship with Mr. Smerchanski and does not want to contaminate that relationship? Is the government slow in acting because it does not know what to do with the material or because it does not care? Is the Government pursuing options in British Columbia as a result of the possibility of a new site for this kind of material being found in the general area of Ashcroft. Does the Minister realize what this has done to the financial picture of this
October 24, 1983

company? Does he realize at all what it means to a company like this in terms of its financial future?
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if we can expect an immediate resolution of this problem so that the employees working on the site can expect to work in safety. Will the Government underwrite soil removal on that land fill site so that employees are not in danger? For example, would the Government get different property for this company so that it does not have to bear the cost of having semi valueless property? Will it remove all that material to a site that will contain radioactivity, and thereby remove any threat to the health of the people of British Columbia, and particularly of Surrey? What kind of financial support will the Government underwrite for a constituent who has been violated by a former member of the Government and needs some kind of recourse to restore the health of his company?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, 1 have always had a good deal of respect for the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), but I must say I am a little disappointed that the case he advocates today is so full of innuendo.
It should be noted that the involvement of a former Liberal MP in this case has not in any way influenced the actions of this Government. I would remind Lion. Members that the low level radioactive waste at Surrey B.C. is the result of the importation and processing of a metallurgical ore in 1972. The resulting 350 tonnes of slag was on the Anvil Way property of Fundy Chemicals when it was bought by Comor Supplies in 1975. The import licence for the ore material included a requirement to obtain AECB approval before disposal.
The new owner was informed of the radioactive content of the slag by an AECB inspector in 1976 and has since successfully prosecuted the former owner for fraud. The latest judgment, which was for $642,000 from the B.C. Supreme Court
Adjournment Debate
in August 1982, was based on the cost of cleanup and removal of the wastes from the Anvil Way site. The new proprietor has also introduced a court action against the AECB and the B.C. Ministry of the Environment which, if successful, would require that a site be found for the waste. The federal Government is now actively co-operating with the B.C. Government in trying to resolve this problem once and for all.
However, the Hon. Member asked if the Government of Canada was doing anything or was concerned about low level radioactive waste. I wish to inform him that a Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office under AECL has been set in motion and that office, Mr. Speaker, has two main objectives. The first is to undertake those studies and actions necessary to resolve historic waste problems which are the responsibility of the federal Government. Historic wastes are those which have been managed in a manner no longer considered satisfactory and for which the original producer cannot reasonably be held responsible. The historic wastes consist mainly of soil contaminated with radium and uranium and were formerly the responsibility of the Federal-Provincial Task Force on Radioactivity. The second objective is to establish or arrange for the establishment of a waste management collection and disposal service which can be used by appropriate producers and users of radio isotopes on a fee for service basis.
I am pleased to say that since the formation of this office considerable progress has been made with the co-operation of the provincial governments. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that in the coming months and, indeed, the coming years, this matter will be resolved, not only to the satisfaction of the residents of the Hon. Member's constituency, but also to the satisfaction of Members of Parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being 6.30 p.m., and in view of the honoured presence of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), the House now stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 6.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, October 25, 1983