1984-05-01

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet (for Mr. Gray) that Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, when I left off speaking yesterday I was stating that the Government does not really care to consult Canadians on how their dollars are spent. The Liberal economic record is something that any intelligent leadership contender would want to distance himself from. Unfortunately, all of them are somewhat tarred with that brush. The new would-be leaders will not even stage an honest to goodness debate with each other as we did in our leadership race. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because they are afraid to say something that might give Canadians some type of policy, something to look forward to. All you have to do, Sir, is pick up The Toronto Sun for this morning and take a look at Donato's cartoon. That cartoon says it all very clearly.
I suppose the only positive thing to have come out of the past 16 years is the clear lesson that Canadians have learned, namely that socialism does not work. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has provided proof of that. The phalanx of Crown corporations is central to the attempt to create a socialist state in Canada, and of that there is little doubt.
The Government, through its army of state-owned enterprises, has a hand in everything. It is active in all forms of transportation, in telecommunications, in energy, in exploration, in computers and aircraft and in the nuclear, fishing, and agricultural industries. Most of them are identical. We have "Cana-this" and "Cana-that" to the point where we "Cana-do" anything right economically and we have lost what once was a proud economic record. It would be quicker and easier, Mr. Speaker, to list all the things into which the Government has not put its hand.
Today's Crown corporations represent the most massive intervention by Government in the private sector that we have
ever seen in Canada. This network of state-owned agencies outside the control of Parliament-and I say in all seriousness outside the control of Parliament-has almost as many employees and almost as large a budget as the regular Public Service. It is disgraceful.
This parallel government has been used to carry out the centralizing policies of the Prime Minister. I thank God for his denouement from the political stage. Through the CIDC, CDC, the NEP and FIRA, power has become increasingly centralized in Ottawa, and specifically in the Prime Minister's office. These corporations have siphoned off investment and jobs from the private sector. They have intervened massively in the ecomony and they have used taxpayers' money to compete with the free enterprise businesses of this great nation. The result has been the loss of foreign investment and the concomitant loss of jobs, pushing up an already high unemployment rate. These policies have bankrupted small businesses across the country, and this is in spite of the established fact that small business is the only sector that is generating new jobs today. Statistically in the last two years only the private sector has created new jobs.
The Government has invaded the free marketplace with a vengeance and with our tax dollars. When governments use our money to interfere with our livelihoods, then something has gone awfully wrong and it certainly has in Canada.
William Simon in his book entitled A Time for Truth repeatedly warns that if you lose your economic freedom, then you lose your individual freedom. Personally I do not want to see that happen in this great country of ours. When governments waste our money in this way without accounting to us for the way it is spent, then that is doubly wrong. And that is exactly what has happened through the creation of these Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker.
In response to the Opposition's repeated demands for corrective action, what does the Government do? It brings in a Bill that will only make the situation worse. If this legislation were to pass in its present form, and we intend on this side to see that is does not, accountability would be curtailed even further and Cabinet control of a significant amount of taxpayers' money would actually increase.
Exactly what is the magnitude of the problem we are considering here, Mr. Speaker? As I have already pointed out, we do not know for sure how many Crown corporations there are. We do know that annually they account for more money than do the annual budgets of some countries, for example, Switzerland, Greece and Austria. The Auditor General was by no means exaggerating when he referred to Crown corporations as sub-governments. In the countries I have mentioned, the taxpayers have control over how their dollars are spent.

May 1, 1984
Financial Administration Act
The problem is that in the case of our sub-governments we have no control.

Bill C-24 will do nothing to change this sorry state of affairs. It has not happened by accident. It has come about as a result of the deliberate socialistic policies of the Prime Minister; it has been financed by taxpayers a i the gas pumps, in the hotels, motels and restaurants; by old age pensioners, farmers and fishermen; and by small business owners. All of this has been at the expense of over 1.5 million unemployed.
The Crown corporations may be "ours", but has it been worth it? A recent poll indicated that 41 per cent of Canadians believe our national oil companies should be sold, while 34 per cent do not. One Liberal leadership aspirant is already making mouthing sounds about selling off the stations of Petro-Canada. I do not think we will see that come to pass because it is contrary to the policies of these fellows.
Has it been worth the outrageous deficit, the staggering unemployment rate and the loss of investor confidence in the country? I think the answer is obvious. I would suggest, however, that it has been worth it for certain individuals. It has been worth it for Jack Horner of CN and Ivan Head of IDRC. It has been worth it for Bud Drury of the NCC and Donald Macdonald. It has been worth it for Pierre Juneau of the CBC, Jack Austin of the CDIC, Joel Bell and Bill Hopper of Petro-Canada, as well as another host of Liberal hacks. They are blatant public hacks. They are parasites of the worst kind, feeding on Canadian taxpayers and dragging down the country to a state of not a banana republic but surely of a snowball republic. I would say that it has been good for the Liberals. There have been nothing but job-creation programs.
The grave concerns expressed by the Auditor General with regard to the lack of accountability of Crown corporations are well known and totally documented. There is no need to repeat all of them, but I would like to quote from his 1982 report because it goes to the heart of the matter before us today:
Parliament is becoming further isolated from an increasing portion of government activities. The growing practice of using Crown-owned corporations to conduct a widening range of government activities has so strained the capability of the existing accountability framework that Parliament may not be able to exercise its fundamental responsibility for overseeing receipts and expenditures of public funds.
That was the reason every one of us was sent here by our constituents. Unlike Hon. Members opposite, we over here will not quietly sit by while the authority of Parliament is eroded in this way.
How can we be expected to carry out our responsibilities when we will be shown under Bill C-24 only summaries of the corporate plans and operating and capital budgets, and only after the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) has had a chance to determine just how much of those will be shown to the public? Are we really expected to trust the Cabinet? Are we really expected to have confidence in legislation drafted by Ed Clark? Ed Clark gave us the disastrous National Energy Program, but what was his claim to fame? It was writing a thesis on the socialism of Tanzania. That is who is running the
National Energy Program; that is the type of people we have in Crown corporations. Where is the control over Crown corporation subsidiaries? There is none. This is the area where the greatest proliferation and mismanagement have taken place.
Why are there severe restrictions on debate of legislation to set up new Crown corporations with only 30 committee days and seven hours of debate? That is closure by statute. The Government has run itself on closure and on Orders in Council ever since it came into power.
Can we imagine a Bill which purports to give Parliament more control over Crown corporations but comes equipped with built-in closure clauses? That is legislated closure before the fact. Bill C-24 contains all that we have come to expect from the Government-increased powers for Cabinet and a gag on parliamentary debate. To Hon. Members opposite I say that this Bill is totally indefensible, no matter how many of them stand in their place, no matter how many platitudes they offer supposedly from the Auditor General. One leadership candidate is speaking out against the Bill. It would be refreshing if more of them would carry the ball as it relates to Petro-Canada alone.
This Bill will do nothing to meet the real concerns of Canadians with respect to Crown corporations. How will we address the intervention of Canada Post into the marketplace, for example? Mr. Warren appeared over national television the other day. What did he say? He said if the unions demand more money, they will increase the price. That was his answer. This is happening in all Crown corporations. The post office will continue to compete with private retailers by subsidizing the operations of Consumers Distributing. It will continue to use subsidized staff to the tune of hundreds of millions dollars a year to create unfair competition, government-controlled. There will be no recourse under the new competition Bill.
Bill C-24 will do nothing to curb the huge appetite of Crown corporations such as Canadair and de Havilland. What happens to the executives who mismanage billions of taxpayers' dollars? As we are all aware, they are given bonuses of up to $20,000 for mismanagement and ineptitude. What happened in CIDA when $25 million in taxpayers' dollars was funnelled into Haiti? They knew that fraudulent payments were being made to the people in the government there. It was a proven fact. Was anyone fired? Was one word said about it? Not a word.
We know what would have happened to those individuals in the real world. They would quickly have become part of the growing army of unemployed. Under this Government they are rewarded for ineptitude and for doing nothing. How can productivity in this country be increased in that fashion? There are unending examples of this type of fiscal ineptitude both in the Government and in the sub-government. It is fitting, is it not, that Senator Austin, who was unable to get elected, controls over half the budget of the sub-government over which the public has absolutely no control? Bill C-24 has
May 1, 1984

nothing whatsoever to do with accountability. It is the reverse. What it does is increase Cabinet control over the state-owned corporations and ask Members of Parliament to trust Cabinet to make the right decisions. When we go to the polls, the people will show the trust they have in this Government. This Government has given us no reason to trust it. A government that would attempt to mislead Canadians with a Bill of this nature obviously cares not a whit about the electorate, the money extracted from it and the purposes for which it will be used.
There has been the National Energy Program, the unilateral imposition of metric, the Canadian ownership charge at the gas pumps, the Liberal slush fund for Liberal ridings, the Department of National Revenue and on and on ad infinitum. Are we really expected to trust that Government? I am afraid not. In almost 15 years the Liberals have not been able to come up with anything better than Bill C-24. I suggest that it be defeated, as that Government will be in the next election. The new Progressive Conservative Government will show Canadians that not only can the job be done, but done without porkbarrelling and done with accountability. We will show them exactly how it can be done. I urge all Members to put Bill C-24 out of its misery, or at least ensure that it is amended to the point that it will give Canadians something they really need.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: At this time in our proceedings a ten-minute period is provided for questions or comments.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart). I wonder whether he has actually read the Bill. He talked about accountability to the Government and to Parliament. Has he had the chance to check that each Crown corporation will have to table a summary of its corporate plan before Parliament? The plans will be referred to the appropriate standing committee, as will the annual report as well as any instructions given to the Crown corporations, as will a summary of all the Crown corporations held by the federal Government. This represents a continuous flow of information which will automatically be tabled in the House and referred to the appropriate standing committee. Parliament will have a great deal more information. Ministers will have the responsibility for defending those Crown corporations both on the floor of the House of Commons in Question Period and before the standing committees.
The Hon. Member also mentioned the recent Gallup poll concerning PetroCan and the support for it in the country. I thought we had been through that in the 1979-80 election. Has the Hon. Member had a chance to read the Gallup poll this morning which indicates that the Liberals have 46 per cent support in the country, the PCs 40 per cent and the NDP 13 per cent? I wonder if the Hon. Member had had a chance to read that Gallup poll as well as the one to which he referred.
Financial Administration Act
[DOT] (U25)


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, what the Bill purports to do is very obvious. It is nothing more than a smokescreen. When the Bill does come before Parliament, it goes back to Cabinet and the decisions are made by Cabinet. Cabinet has full authority after the Bill has been in the House. The fact that these Bills come to the House first has no real meaning whatsoever.
The Bill does not provide for control of the subsidiaries. This is not because the Bill has come before the House but because there is no one Minister who will be responsible for a Crown corporation which makes a mess like Canadair did. As the Hon. Member knows, there is no control over the appointments of the chief executive officers, chairmen and directors. Cabinet does that. In my view, that is politburo and state control.
As far as the Gallup poll is concerned, I think it is wonderful. Just maybe those fellows over there will screw up enough courage to go to the people. Then we will see what happens.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any more questions or comments? We will resume debate.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue the debate on Bill C-24, the Crown corporations legislation. I would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the most conspicuous examples of government mismanagement in recent years have been in the operations of Crown corporations like Canadair, de Havilland and other companies which are 100 per cent owned by the Crown as well as companies like Consolidated Computer, AECL and Devco, to name just a few.
Having been burned by some of these disasters which have stemmed from lack of control, lack of accountability and lack of lines of responsibility between the Cabinet and Parliament and between the board of directors and management of the companies concerned, the taxpayers expect the Government to make a serious effort to address this problem. They expect the Government to set in place some structures, rules and systems to help avoid a repeat of these problems which have cost the taxpayers billions of dollars and which have obviously cost the Liberal Government grave political embarrassment.
Addressing those problems should have been the objective of this Bill. It should have been the objective of the Bill if Government members had understood the problem, if they were serious about addressing the problem if they were really concerned about the loss of those billions of taxpayers' dollars and if they understood the political significance of the fact that when the average voter thinks of government mismanagement, he or she thinks of Canadair, de Havilland, Maislin and AECL. The voter thinks of Crown corporations or government investments which have gone sour.
What is shocking about the legislation that has been put in front of us today is that it simply sidesteps the problem. It ignores the fundamental problem of the lack of control and the lack of accountability which led up to this tremendous loss of taxpayers' funds. That is one major reason why taxpayers and

May 1, 1984
Financial Administration Act
other voters in Canada are saying that this government must go and that it must make way for a team of people who are competent in management, who understand management problems, who understand how to deal with a lack of accountability and who understand that a lack of management control leads to a loss of money. It must make way for people who understand that managers who do not know whether their superiors are the Cabinet, a public servant, a board of directors or management end up with no one controlling them. When there is too much flexibility in the system, it leads to too much ad hockery and too little discipline, both of which combine to lead to a tremendous loss of money.
It is obvious that Government members do not understand these problems. They do not understand what good management is and what good management must try to do. They do not understand the significance of the questions we ask about Crown corporations. They simply do not understand. When we ask them why the Government did not replace the directors of Canadair who preside over a company which lost $1.5 billion in one single year, they say that we are against the development of that company in the City of Montreal and that we are against job creation in the City of Montreal.
That is simply not the point, Mr. Speaker. When we ask whether they have done a cost-benefit analysis and why they are willing to spend nearly $1 billion of taxpayers' money on a new program for de Havilland, which they say is not commercially viable, they say we are out to destroy de Havilland. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how can we destroy de Havilland? The company has had a great record of success over the past 40 or 50 years but this company has undertaken the Dash-8 program which they say in black and white will not be commercially viable period. I do not understand.
What will destroy this company is not the Opposition Parties, but a lack of attention to the problem, a lack of understanding of the problem and an inability to deal with the problem on a timely basis. That is what is hurting these companies today and that is what has led them to the position that they are in today.
I would like to give some insight into the attitudes of the Ministers of this Government. We all remember the Consolidated Computer Limited debacle that took place two or three years ago. Consolidated Computer was purchased by the Government about ten years ago. It ended up being given away, effectively, by the Government at a total loss to the taxpayer of some $124 million. The Government tried to hustle the final loss past us in December, 1981, or the end of November, 1981, at the last possible minute, through supplementary estimates. The House was given no chance to consider the problem and no chance to get an understanding of the lessons which could have been learned by the mess that we had gone through.
I listened while the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) and the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) asked questions of the Minister, the same Minister
who is putting this legislation before us today, the current President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray). I listened while the questions were being put to him and then my turn came just shortly before ten o'clock. I said: "Mr. Minister, I have one question to ask you. Who in the Department was responsible for the $124 million loss?'' I asked that question four times in different ways and the answer that I kept getting was: "Look, I do not think it is right for me as Minister to reveal the name of a public servant; that is something that must be kept within the Department". He was not going to answer that question. So, I said: "I accept that, Mr. Minister. I do not agree with you, but I accept it. Let me ask you one other question. Did you find out who was responsible"? I received a double-talk answer. I said: "No, I want a straight answer, Mr. Minister, yes or no. Did you ask who was responsible for the $124 million loss?" Again I received bafflegab. I asked the question four times and each time I got the same ring around the rosy. Then I put the answer to the committee, which was not denied by the Minister. I said: "All I can take from the way you are answering the question, Mr. Minister, is that when this came on your desk you said, 'How can we sweep this under the rug? How can we avoid parliamentary concern and parliamentary debate on this? How can we avoid publicity for a $124 million loss? What is the best way to cover up this problem?' "
That is the attitude of the Ministers of this Government. That is the attitude of the Minister who presented this legislation today. I give that insight because that is what this Bill is trying to do. It is attempting to give the Government the flexibility to sweep problems under the rug. There are no precise rules for accountability. There is a lot of ministerial discretion in this Bill and that was the answer the Parliamentary Secretary gave-that the discretion is there to avoid putting things in front of Parliament if the Minister decides that he does not want to do so. That is the weakness of this Bill. There is no requirement for a precise mandate for Crown corporations. We have a general mandate in the legislation, but no mandate is required to take into account the changing circumstances under which a company is operating.
There are increasing opportunities here to rely on that favourite tool of Liberal Governments for the past 15 years- the Order in Council. The Government tells us in this Bill that it can do things by Order in Council because there are a lot of things that it does not want to put under parliamentary scrutiny. It wants to do things quietly in the Cabinet room and then have the question come out after the fact, after we cannot do anything about it, after it is totally beyond our control to have any impact on the decision that has already been made.
Bill C-24 is not what we want, it is not what we need, but sadly it is what we should expect from this Government. Let us look at some of the things that have been presented to us as Members of Parliament in this piece of legislation. Bill C-24, first of all, does not cover nearly the extent of Crown investments as it should. It omits mixed and joint enterprises-de Havilland, Canadair and investments such as Consolidated Computer. It includes only the parent companies, so there is a
May 1, 1984

great gap in the control that we as Members of Parliament will have over vast investments by the federal Government. As I said previously, there is a lot of room for ministerial discretion. Most aspects of the Bill are covered by regulation. We have not seen the regulations. As far as I am aware the Government has no intention of informing us of the regulations before the legislation is passed.
Some aspects of the Bill look pretty good at first glance. There is a requirement for the operating budgets, the capital budgets that my colleague referred to previously. The Government also has the option to exempt individual corporations from these requirements, so that we are kept in the dark like the growing of mushrooms.
The result is that Parliament could end up with less information than it is receiving now. The operating capital budgets will only be put before Parliament if Treasury Board and the Minister allow. The Bill restricts Parliament's ability to debate special Act corporations. This, as my colleague and other Members from this side have said, is a tremendous gap in the powers that we have as Members of Parliament. My colleague referred to it as closure by legislation-30 days of committee time and seven hours of House of Commons debate for the formation of Crown corporations which could have a tremendous impact on the economy and on the operations of government. There is simply no more control given to Parliament when there are big gaps like that in the legislation.
Let us look at the position of Ministers who are supposedly responsible for the Crown corporations. They are designated as the shareholders. They are the ones who are supposed to control the operations of the company, but effectively under the terms of this Bill that is fully taken away from them by either Cabinet or by Order in Council. There is no increase in real responsibility. In fact-I will develop this thought later, Mr. Speaker-when there are so many focal points of possible responsibility, either of the Minister, of the full Cabinet, of the Public Service, the board of directors, or in management, and there is no indication within this Bill as to where the final authority resides, it means that everybody's business is nobody's business. We are left floating in a sea of ill-defined responsibilities. That is bound to result in more disasters. The Minister, as others on this side have pointed out, becomes simply a post box address. That is purely and simply the result of it. The role of the board of directors, the chief executive officers and the senior officers of Crown corporations is set not by the Minister or the board of directors but by Cabinet. That is a very major weakness.
If you think back-and I encourage you to read this, Mr. Speaker-on June 7, 1983 there was a very important report released by the Senator from the other place on the operations of Canadair. This was a text book example of how Crown corporations should not be run. It pointed out all the problems from which Canadair suffered because there was lack of responsibility and lack of understanding of where the lines of authority lay. The result has been that we got into this $1.5 billion loss.
Financial Administration Act
This new legislation does nothing to remedy that situation. It learns nothing from the problems we suffered and from the tremendous loss that we, as taxpayers, have underwritten here. The quality of the people who are appointed to these boards of directors by the Liberal Government will continue to be the same. We all know the problems of the Mackaseys and the Horners, but there are also the financial contributors, the bagmen for the Party and the campaign people who are on the boards of directors of these companies. I do not have anything against campaign people or boards of directors, but I do have a very serious difference of opinion when these people are put into jobs for which they have no training and no understanding as to what corporate affairs are all about, what budgets are or what corporate planning entails.
Bill C-24 does nothing to change that situation. It does nothing to indicate to these people the importance of the job which they are being asked to do and the reasons why they should not be appointed to those positions by this Government. Bill C-24 reinforces the problem we have today and leaves us in a position where the directors of these Crown corporations are eunuchs; they are cyphers and they are simply there to collect a political pay-off. The result is there is no accountability, no check and balance at the board of directors' level of the performance of the senior officers, or the company at large. Until the Liberals demonstrate by their actions that directors have a clear role to play, that they have specific responsibilities, we must expect a continuation of the problems of the Canadairs, the de Havillands, the CCIs, the Devcos, and so on.
With respect to ministerial responsibility, Bill C-24 leaves the Minister as the shareholder by law but requires the Cabinet to approve most of the major initiatives, a responsibility which one would expect the shareholders to take, such as appointments of directors, auditors, chairmen, chief executive officers, preparation of the budgets. All this is taken away from them by this legislation and put into the hands of the Cabinet. The result will be a significant lack of accountability and that simply is not going to serve the taxpayers of our country well.
Let us now look at where some of the responsibility does lie. Bill C-24 gives authority to the Governor in Council, subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance, to approve borrowings and guarantees. The Minister of Finance is provided with the final authority for these Crown corporations. What I was looking for in this legislation was something I have been asking for in this House for about three years now, that is, overall control of borrowing, not just the direct borrowing of the Government of Canada which comes under the borrowing authority legislation, but an overall authority which covers the direct and indirect borrowing of Crown corporations plus the guarantees and the letters of comfort and things of that nature which add up to the hidden deficit. I am not talking about just the $31 billion but about the larger hidden deficit of the Government of Canada of $36 billion or $37 billion. I have asked the Minister of Finance, both the previous Minister of Finance and the current Minister of Finance, for this. I have

May 1, 1984
Financial Administration Act
been told it would be looked into but to date it has been totally ignored. This is a very major gap in this legislation.
The final point I would like to cover, Mr. Speaker, is the mandate of Crown corporations. This is a problem which has developed in recent years as Crown corporations have suffered some setbacks, and I use that word in a very gentle way. There have been instances such as this with AECL and with Caner-tech, where the Crown corporations, with the full financial support of the Government of Canada, have moved into areas which are not covered by their mandate at all. The result has been very unfair competition between these Crown corporations and the private sector, which previously has been able to look at that area of business as part of its own area of responsibility.
Let me give the example of Canertech. It is doing retrofits on buildings which involves a very extensive capital expenditure. What Canertech is saying to the owners of the buildings is: "We will do this business for you. We will pay for the total capital cost of it and you pay us by the savings which you make on the heating and air conditioning as a result of the retrofit". This is a very good deal. It is a deal which no one can refuse. But it is a deal which no private sector company could possibly offer. I say in the best of parliamentary spirit to the Parliamentary Secretary, since the Minister is not here, to take back this thought of giving Crown corporations and federal Government wholly-owned companies such a mandate and give them a much clearer mandate so that they are restricted in their ability to compete on unfair terms with the private sector.
In conclusion, this Bill is a major disappointment to us as Members of Parliament. We have no confidence that the Government has learned the lessons of the past and that is an overwhelming reason not only for a change of government but to scrap this Bill and allow a new government which understands the problem to bring in better legislation which will deal effectively with the situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there questions or comments? Resuming debate.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate because I believe it is a very important debate. All of us realize that Crown corporations have taken an increasingly important role in implementing the policy of this Government. As a result, any changes which are made to the way in which these Crown corporations can act, in the way they can respond and generally do their business, becomes increasingly important to deal with in this House.
First in my remarks today I would like to comment on what essentially we had hoped to see in the Bill, in fact what, I suppose, we expected to see in this particular piece of legislation. What we wanted to see dealt with was ministerial responsibility for Crown corporations, which becomes very important when we look at a simple example, one with which I am familiar, of Canada Post. Time and time again we have addressed questions regarding that particular Crown corporation in this House of Commons only to have the Minister say: "I will have to check with the responsible people in Canada Post. I will have to see what they say". The Minister never gives a direct, straight answer here in the House of Commons. It is always a circuitous answer. That is the kind of thing which we as parliamentarians want to address because we see it as being absolutely essential to make sure that Crown corporations are responsible to Parliament.
The second thing we had hoped to see in this particular piece of legislation is a statement of principle on the role of Crown corporations. What is happening with them? In what direction are they intending to move? That has to be important to any kind of parliamentary overview of Crown corporations in our present set-up.
Third, we looked for a classification system of Crown corporations which was based essentially on the level of subsidization which they received from the Government. In other words, if you have a Crown corporation which is accepting a high level of funding from Parliament, then obviously it has to be very much accountable to Parliament because it must be responsible for the use of public funds, taxpayers' money. On the other hand, if a Crown corporation receives little or no funding from Parliament, perhaps then we can be a little less stringent in relation to that corporation.
The fourth thing we saw as being significant and important to this legislation is that there should be controls over Crown corporation subsidiaries. In other words, the subsidiaries of any particular Crown corporation must be held accountable, must be responsible and must in some way answer to Parliament, thereby to Members of Parliament, and ultimately to the Canadian people.
The fifth thing we were looking for is comprehensive public business plans. The Canadian people have a right to know where any public agency is going. They have a right to know what kind of plans are being made for that agency and in which direction it intends to move.
The sixth thing we looked for is very important. It is an effective and meaningful audit by the Auditor General. That is very important when we consider the number of examples we have seen lately that have demonstrated waste by Government.
We also wanted to have some form of standardized accounting procedures. We have heard a lot of discussions on the significance of comprehensive auditing lately. We feel a need to have those accounting procedures standardized.
The eighth thing which we felt was essential was to have boards of directors comparable to those in the private sector. In other words, they must have some clout, authority, impact and ability to give direction to the organization they are dealing with.
The final thing which we were looking for is something which I personally feel is extremely important. We wanted to see a joint committee of the House of Commons and the
May 1, 1984

Senate set up with a mandate to initiate periodic reviews of Crown corporations. That becomes essential.
A short time ago I was very pleased to work with the special committee on parliamentary reform. We spent a good deal of our time studying this particular area of concern. We studied it because we felt there was a tremendous interest by Canadians in knowing what is happening with Crown corporations. Canadians felt a need to make sure that these corporations were accountable to Parliament. We spent a good deal of time considering various ways of making sure that sort of thing was addressed.
One of the recommendations which I thought was significant was put forward in the report commonly referred to as the Huntington-Lachance report. That was a recommendation to set up a special committee to look into what we called the quasi-government agencies. It would be a committee to look at Crown corporations which are once removed from Parliament, but which at the same time play a significant role in the policies of the Government and the directions that these corporations were taking. We felt that kind of scrutiny was essential.
We needed those things because of the central role of Crown corporations and other agencies and their growing impact upon Canada.
I would like to speak for a few minutes about why we were looking for those things to be done and why we expected to see them in this particular legislation. Anyone who has paid any attention to the subject for any amount of time will know that there has been a great deal of debate and interest in this subject. There have been various reports by the Auditor General calling for the nine basic points which I have discussed briefly. The Lambert Commission is another example of a group and a report which was seeking reform in the way that Crown corporations were dealt with in Parliament. There is the Privy Council Office blue book. There was previous consideration in the forefathers of this particular Bill-Bills C-27, C-123 and C-153. In addition to those Bills and reports there have been a number of academic papers done on this subject across Canada, all of which have stressed the very important need for reform in our ability to deal with Crown corporations.
In addition to that, probably one of the most important elements calling for reform has been Canadians themselves from coast to coast. Any Member of Parliament, whether on the Opposition or Government side, will tell you that Canadians are very much concerned with the impact Crown corporations are having and how they are held accountable by Parliament for the Canadian people. All of the groups which I have just referred to expected to see these nine basic principles addressed. All of them stated the need for reform and control over Crown corporations.
The reason these various groups have come up with these essential points can probably be broken down into five general statements. The first reason or need for reform is the dramatic increase in the number of Crown corporations. I understand that the piece of legislation which we are debating today will apply to 183 Crown corporations, all of which have an impact
Financial Administration Act
of varying degree upon our country and the policies and directions taken in our country.
Second, there has been a significant increase in the number of Crown corporations and agencies and in their importance, but there has not been the corresponding balance of accountability. That is the sort of thing we want to encourage.
The third reason is that there has been no comprehensive system of control or accountability. Another reason dealing with accountability is that accountability has tended to be spread out. When accountability is spread out it becomes diluted and ultimately there is no accountability.
My colleague who spoke before me addressed the fifth reason. It is the idea of political appointments of directorships. When that happens frequently it becomes increasingly important to have well-defined regulations, guidelines and policies to ensure that things are carried on in a businesslike and efficient manner.
I have essentially spoken about what I feel we need. I have spoken about who I believe has suggested the kind of things we need. I have also spoken a little bit about why I think we need these particular amendments. I would now like to touch briefly upon what I believe we have ended up with in this Bill. As I see it, it has essentially been a contrast between what we needed and what we ended up with.
I would first like to discuss ministerial responsibility. By looking at the way things are laid out we find that the Minister shares his responsibility. He shares it generally with Treasury Board and specifically with the Finance Minister. He shares it generally with Cabinet and specifically with the board of directors. There is a lot of shared responsibility. It goes back and forth and in and out. We end up with no one individual taking absolute responsibility. This can have a tendency to create confusion and misunderstanding. The essential concern is that with that watered down approach individuals will be passing the buck in an endless cycle and no one will take responsibility.
I will refer back to the Crown corporation Canada Post. There is a situation within Canada Post which is having a tremendous impact upon Canadians and is causing a great deal of concern to small business people across the country. Canada Post is doing some testing on the idea of getting into the catalogue business by way of serving as a counter to take orders. Several times in the House the Minister has been asked what is going on, what is happening, where we are going. Time and again his response has been that he will check it out. The ultimate response we have received is that Canada Post will make a decision after the results of those tests are received. The question that Parliament wants answered is: If the results of those tests are good for Canada Post, is that all that is required for it to proceed or does it have to be good for the business community at large and the Canadian public? Those are the issues which need to be addressed.
Let me give an example. There is a lady in my area who makes her living by running a shop in which she takes orders

May 1, 1984
Financial Administration Act
for a particular catalogue company. That provides her with her livelihood to support her family. As well, she has two or three part-time employees who earn part of their living from that particular business. If Canada Post proceeds to open up this type of business in the post office in that small community, that woman will immediately be out of a job. Her business will cease to exist. Her family will have lost its means of support. Is that the kind of action we as parliamentarians want to encourage? I do not think so. The only way we can prevent that from happening is by having an accountable and responsible Minister in the House who can stand up and give a definitive answer and make a decision. One would certainly doubt that this is the case at the present time.
Let me proceed and talk about the statement of principles regarding Crown corporations. I do not see a clear definition of that in this legislation, nor is there a classification system according to the subsidization level that I referred to in my third point. Rather, there seems to be a somewhat arbitrary list. For example, Air Canada is put together with CDIC. However, what is included within CDIC? It is Canadair. One corporation has been very successful while the other has not.
There is a corporation and an administrative agency lumped together. These are Canada Post and the National Capital Commission. It is difficult to understand how they relate to each other. Of course, the joint or mixed enterprises in which government agencies are involved are not even included. I think that lack of a comprehensive guidance system, which we believe is so essential, has allowed, and in fact in some ways encouraged, Crown corporations to invent their own policies and objectives. How can Crown corporations really be effective policy instruments without that kind of clear direction and guidance?
The question remains: Is this legislation going to create a standard approach to Crown corporations? Will it end the jumbled and ad hoc approach that exists at the moment and make an actual improvement? We on this side suggest that there will not be much significant improvement as a result of this particular piece of legislation.
We do not believe there is a meaningful attempt in this legislation to control the creation of Crown corporations, their subsidiaries or affiliates. We do not believe there is an assurance for the presentation of clear business plans so that there will be good, clear financial reporting. We do not believe there will be a standardizing of the necessary accounting procedures to ensure that its practices are clear and understandable to allow us quickly and efficiently to understand if the corporation is operating as we believe it is.
I believe there are a number of reasons why there is no real attempt to accomplish those goals. First, there are contradictions within the legislation. Second, this Bill has not amended the original Crown corporations and incorporation legislation that allows open-ended treatment of these particular agencies by Cabinet.
The third reason concerns the wide exemptive clauses that are imbedded in this particular Bill. The final reason involves
the regulatory powers. One only needs to look at Clause 135(4) to have an example of that. It reads:
The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, make regulations
(a) exempting a specified Crown corporation or a Crown corporation of a specified class from the application of subsection (3)-
One can see that exemptions are already taking place. There are loopholes in the legislation that allow a particular corporation to get around the particular concerns that we believe should be addressed in the Bill.
This legislation also allows the exclusion of individual Crown corporations from the requirements of the Bill. That exclusion is contained in the clause to which I just referred. I immediately see a red flag whenever such a provision is brought to my attention. I know there are some dangers inherent in such a clause. It also provides that regulation will allow individual Crown corporations to be treated differently from others. Again, one must see a red flag warning because there is concern for potential problems and difficulties.
Therefore, in my view this Bill is one that advocates the ad hoc treatment of Crown corporations rather than the standardizing of the approach. I think this legislation goes part way in clarifying the role of the auditor. The Bill makes some clarifications in this case, but since it is a very important area it is not sufficient to move part way. Essentially, the Bill limits the scope of the special examinations by the auditor. For example, Clause 148 indicates that he cannot really get involved in reviewing policy. That is very important because we as parliamentarians want to make sure that policies are being enacted and carried out.
I thank you for the time given to me, Mr. Speaker. It is an important piece of legislation but I think it is inadequate. We are not satisfied with it and I will not be supporting it.


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Guilbault):: Are there questions or comments related to the Hon. Member's remarks?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) concerning the Bill. I am not sure that he has read the same Bill as I.
He talked a great deal about the question of ministerial responsibility. It seems to me that the Bill clearly sets out that there will be a Minister designated for each Crown corporation. Of course, decisions are made by Cabinet but there is only one Minister who is on the firing line, whether it is during Question Period in the House or when legislation is put through the House. Whether the Minister is defending his estimates, the corporate plan, the budget, the auditor's report or the Auditor General's report, it is the individual Minister who is responsible.
In our system of collective Cabinet responsibility, I find it difficult to understand how the Minister who is designated to be responsible for a particular Crown corporation is somehow not responsible. In the case of Crown corporations which are totally owned by the Government, he is the shareholder and there can be no question about his responsibility.
May 1, 1984 ________________COMMONS DEBATES_______________________3273
The Hon. Member raised the issue of Canada Post and its trial business with the Consumers Distributing Company. This Bill gives the responsible Minister directive powers. I am not certain this is contained in every special Crown corporation Act but clearly this Bill is one which overrides all other legislation relating to Crown corporations. All Crown corporations must comply with it. I suggest that meets the concern that the Hon. Member has already expressed. Clearly, the powers of the Bill apply to wholly-owned subsidiaries just as they apply to parent Crown corporations.
The Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) I believe mentioned one corporation in which the Government has an interest or share. I am not clear how the Government can completely control a company when it only has a partial investment. Clearly, this Bill provides that where there is 100 per cent ownership, those subsidiaries will be subject to the same directive powers as the wholly-owned parent Crown corporation.
With regard to auditing, the provisions set out in the Bill are that generally accepted accounting principles must be used. These principles are contained in a book that is approximately four inches thick and they guide and control all Canada Business Corporation Act companies. It provides that not only must those accounting principles be used, but the Minister may require that stronger provisions be made.
I agree with his argument that the House should consider whether it wants to have a special Crown corporation committee or a joint committee with the Senate, but that is a question for the House rules committee to deal with. I do not think that matter needs to be dealt with in this Bill.
Clearly with the number of corporations, I believe it is 60-some parent Crown corporations and many subsidiaries, it would be impractical not to have those corporate plans, the budgets, the audits and so on all referred to regular standing committees. It seems to me it would be impractical to have one special committee of the House deal with them on an ongoing basis.
The Hon. Member suggested that the Bill does not cover the growth of Crown corporations. Clearly it is set out in this Bill that there are only two ways Crown corporations can be established. One is through the Canada Business Corporations Act, which the Government has used in the past. When Crown corporations are set up under that provision now, a motion has to be brought in the House stating exactly their powers and prerogatives. The motion would have to be referred to a committee for some 30 sitting days and then it would be subject to at least seven hours' debate in the House as well. If it was a special Bill, such as the CDIC Bill which is before the House now, something like Petro-Canada, or other major pieces of legislation relating to Crown corporations, these special cases would continue to be brought forward under special legislation where there is no limitation on debate or discussion.
Financial Administration Act
I think many of the concerns which the Hon. Member raised will be apparent when we get into discussion in the standing committee. A lot of them have been dealt with. I hope the Hon. Member will have a chance to read in more detail the provisions of the Bill and perhaps be reassured in our committee discussions.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, obviously if I went into a detailed response, I would need another 20 minutes to answer the Parliamentary Secretary, but let me reply in this sense. Why, if we have such ministerial accountability, can we never get a straight answer from the Minister responsible for Canada Post? Why, if the Liberals are so concerned with this Bill and feel that this Bill clearly demonstrates urgency, while we in this Party are concerned about parliamentary scrutiny, is closure in advance applied to Crown corporations? Third, if the Liberals are so impressed with this idea of a special committee, why do they not show some leadership and put that suggestion forward as a recommendation attached to this Bill?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any more questions or comments? We shall now resume debate. The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields).


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-24 with a great deal of apprehension. I see in this Bill exactly the same process that was imposed when the National Energy Program was introduced into this House of Commons.
First, Bill C-24 was an initiative by the Government for the so-called control of Crown corporations because of the pressure building across the country and because of a position which our Party took in laying down policy. We indicated some of our ideas that were necessary for Canada and the taxpayer to gain control of a government, a hidden government, and I am referring to Crown corporations.
I think we all know, Mr. Speaker, that the total number of people employed by Crown corporations exceeds the total number of people employed in the federal civil service. It is clear that these corporations have to be brought under control. The Government, at the urging of this Party, has introduced Bill C-24. The Bill is a typical smokescreen which we have seen this Government use on the taxpayers of Canada time and time again. This Government is introducing legislation and tying every major point of control in that legislation to regulations that will be imposed or set up after the Bill becomes effective; after the Bill is passed by this House. Then we will see the regulations and the regulations will be tied to the very substantive clauses within the legislation.
Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker. The National Energy Program was introduced and the regulations were introduced afterwards. These regulations gave wide discretionary powers to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is the Minister who can determine who will or will not get grants which are being paid for by the taxpayer for off-shore drilling. It is the Minister who by regulation will determine whether there is or is not enough Canadian content for compa-

May 1, 1984
Financial Administration Act
nies to become eligible for grants to drill in the Beaufort Sea or on Canada Lands. It is the Minister with discretionary powers, not tied to legislation but tied to regulations, which allow him to determine who in fact will get a contract and who will not. That takes the complete control, the complete accountability, out of Parliament and puts it into the Minister's hands.
Those huge regulation-making powers of the Government insulates a Crown corporation from any public scrutiny, any parliamentary scrutiny. I ask you, Sir, what individual would invest in a company and allow that company to take part in the kind of activity required of it that may be set down in its by-laws? What individual investor would allow that to happen if a company were exempted in all cases from tabling before that investor the result of its year's activities through a profit and loss statement showing how the company spent its money, the investors' money? This practice is fundamental to the business world. Individual investors would not accept exemption of the tabling of a profit and loss statement and neither should taxpayers.
Crown corporations must be accountable to the Members of the House of Commons who represent the taxpayers and shareholders of Crown corporations. What many people fail to realize but are starting to understand is that Crown corporations like the CNR, Air Canada and Petro-Canada must be held accountable to the shareholders, namely the taxpayers. They are not the Government; they are the taxpayers of the country. Crown corporations must be made accountable, and this legislation will not bring that about.
As I said, virtually every clause of substance within Bill C-24 has attached to it a regulation-making power by which government, not the people accountable to the taxpayers, defines how the clause will operate or which Crown corporations can be exempted. Without seeing the regulations, which the Government continually stonewalls and refuses to table in the House of Commons, how do we know how the Government intends to use the Bill? It is absolutely impossible to expect Members of Parliament representing the taxpayers of the country to pass Bill C-24 without knowing beforehand how the Government intends to use it.
I hearken back to the Petro-Canada Act. That company was formed so that the Government would have a window on the industry. There had been some poor forecasts of oil and gas reserves in Canada. The Liberal Government of the day brought in an Act to form Petro-Canada. Its members now say that Petro-Canada is ours. It is not ours, it is theirs, because that company is not accountable to Canadian taxpayers. The original intention was to form a window on the industry, as I said. It has grown by taking over and purchasing other companies. The clear intention of the Government has been to make it very large and unaccountable to taxpayers. That cannot continue. That was not the original intention. If in the debates at that time we had asked the Government what it intended to do, its members would have said: "We do not intend to open
up service stations across the country". By regulation they have been able to do that because the Government controls what happens to Petro-Canada.
A mirror of the Petro-Canada legislation is the Canagrex legislation. Because of the regulatory powers vested in that legislation, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) can open up corner grocery stores from coast to coast. If we ask him whether that will happen, he will say: "Of course we will not do that; we never intend to do that". There is lack of control by taxpayers, the people who indirectly own every lock, stock and barrel of those Crown corporations. We cannot go to those Crown corporations to obtain the inside information which is required by investors. It is ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous, when we as taxpayers and as Members representing taxpayers are not privy to the information within those companies concerning their day to day operations because it is a closed door.
The Auditor General of Canada cannot go to Crown corporations and demand that their books be opened to him. The chairmen and presidents of those companies have stated publicly, as all Hon. Members of the House know, that the Auditor General has no business within our Crown corporations. The Auditor General is appointed by the House of Commons to account for the spending of taxpayers' dollars. Everyone agreed that the Auditor General should be the watch-dog and should point out where money was being wasted or spent unwisely. He is not privy to information from Crown corporations unless Crown corporations on their own or the Minister decide to open the books to him. We see this fiasco time and time again.
The very sad state of affairs of Crown corporations today will not be covered or changed by this legislation. Appointments of boards of directors and chief executive officers are made and approved by the Minister or some of his colleagues. That has clearly been abused in the past and continues to be abused. I will not name specific appointments but there have been appointments of clear political hacks. The time has come for every Member of the House of Commons to be satisfied that Crown corporations have the best possible choice of people in chief executive officer positions and on their boards. We have had case after case of appointments to various boards of Crown corporations where the people appointed had absolutely no concept of how business was run or even what the Crown corporations were supposed to do.
Crown corporations are needed in a mixed economy like that of Canada's to provide service where the private sector does not have the capability to do so. We have seen it with the Northern Transportation Company, with which I am familiar. It operates off the eastern Arctic. It operated a tug and barge service from Fort McMurray up to Uranium City and all points in between. That Crown corporation decided five years ago to sell off that company, and some of the chief executive officers or members of the board were to try to buy it. They used the excuse that Uranium City was shutting down and drove the profit margin of the Fort McMurray to Uranium City part of the operation into the ground so that they could
May 1, 1984

show a loss. Also it is becoming clear that they repaired and put new bottoms on barges, repaired tugs on the Athabasca line, moved those tugs and barges over to the eastern Arctic, and charged the repair, the upgrading and the transportation of those vessels to the Athabasca run. In my view that was done purposely to show that it was operating at a loss so that they could shut it down and free up some very valuable land in downtown Fort McMurray.
All of this has been done. When you question the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), you do not get an answer. He is not accountable because the Crown corporation operates as a separate entity. It is accountable to no one. In their wisdom, Crown corporations have spawned other Crown corporations by forming subsidiaries and the subsidiaries have done the same.
We ask questions about these corporations in this House, but they are not accountable either to this House or to the taxpayers of this country. When a Crown corporation runs a severe deficit, the Canadian taxpayer picks up the tab with no questions asked. We make noise in this House. We question the Minister. We asked the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) why the chief executive officers of a Crown corporation received bonuses of $130,000 and $150,000 while at the same time the employees of that corporation were being asked to take a cut in pay. The Minister replied they had to do that in order to keep top management; otherwise the corporation would not operate and there would be no jobs for the workers.
The shareholders in a corporation the size of that Crown corporation would demand the resignation of those chief executive officers. Private investors and shareholders in such a company would demand the removal of the board of directors. They are accountable. We have seen that done time and again. One need only look at the history of the major corporations in this country to see that they are truly accountable. Chief executive officers constantly get canned if they do not do their jobs. A board of directors is removed if it does not do its job.
This Minister stood in the House and said that even though Canadair lost $250 million of the taxpayers' money as a result of poor management decisions, we have to pay bonuses to the chief executive officers in order to keep top-notch people. There is no accountability to the taxpayers of this country. There will be a revolt in this country with regard to our tax system if we do not-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired. Are there any questions or comments? Resuming debate.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine);: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, has some serious flaws. The Act will not be binding. It is just more window dressing and another
Financial Administration Act
Liberal smokescreen. Bill C-29 will be coming up for debate in the near future. It contains a clause which states:
This Act is binding on an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province that is a corporation, in respect of commercial activities engaged in by the corporation in competition, whether actual or potential, with other persons, but not in respect of commercial activities engaged in by the corporation that are directly associated with its regulatory activities.
That is what is weak in Bill C-24, namely that it is not binding. When we see the disgraceful performance of our Crown corporations, Bill C-24 should be more binding. It took this Government five years to bring forward this legislation. It lacks several important features that are contained in Bill C-27. In 1979 it took the Conservative Government six months to begin the clean-up of the Crown corporation mess.
Bill C-24 does not cover mixed and joint enterprises. Although it catches 183 Crown corporations and subsidiaries, the legislation does not cover 109 Crown corporations, mixed and joint enterprises and their subsidiaries. It is strange that it would leave out 109 Crown corporations. It is impossible to know the effect of this Bill because everything is done by regulation and we have not seen the regulations. Assuming the Bill is passed, all regulations will be made by the Government behind closed doors. In the majority of instances they will not be made public. Therefore, Bill C-24 is just mere window dressing.
When the Canada Post Corporation Act was formed in 1981, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blen-karn) introduced an amendment asking that the accounts and financial transactions of the corporation be audited annually by the Auditor General. That would be a complete audit. It was voted down by the then Liberal Government.
Bill C-24 is supposed to bring more accountability to Crown corporations. Bill C-31, recently tabled by the Government, an Act to amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, states:
All that portion of subsection 17(2) of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act following paragraph (b) thereof is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"shall not exceed thirty million dollars".
That is increasing the borrowing authority just like that. The current level is $20 million. The board will have the power to borrow an additional $10 million with absolutely no explanation. The manager of that corporation is a local Manitoba Liberal who is obviously going to carry on in the Liberal tradition. Their solution to all problems is to spend more borrowed money. There is no explanation or accountability clause, no calling in the corporation to explain the increased borrowing.
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs are parading around the country. I refer to John Turner and the others who are running for the leadership of the Liberal Party. They have a goodies list, bribing taxpayers with their own money. Each one of them has the qualifications to take over as leader of the Liberal Party, especially John Turner who, when he was Finance Minister, introduced the "blank cheque government" to Canada. He played a large part in the uncontrolled spending.

May 1, 1984
Financial Administration Act
They are talking about moving Crown corporations around. They are going to give Manitoba a Crown corporation. Mr. Turner did not explain to his audience that if a Crown corporation moves from Ottawa to Winnipeg, under the Public Service Act the employees do not have to move if they do not want to. He would move the Crown corporation to Winnipeg. Perhaps only 10 per cent of the employees of that corporation would want to move. What would we do with the other 90 per cent of the employees? They would stay here and we would have to find jobs for them some place. This would be an excellent way to almost double the size of the bureaucracy. He neglected to explain this to his audience. He did not explain what it would cost the people and he did not explain that it would almost double the size of the bureaucracy. Not very many employees would want to move from Ottawa to Winnipeg or any other place because they are already established here. Of course, "Three-position Turner" did not suggest that a cost-benefit analysis be undertaken before moving Crown corporations. He simply said he would move Crown corporations. He is a true Grit.
The expansion of these hundreds and hundreds of Crown corporations began around the time that Mr. Turner was the Finance Minister. During Mr. Turner's tenure, government spending rose almost 100 per cent. He holds the marvellous record of inheriting a $700 million surplus and turning it into a $5.4 billion deficit during his tenure as Finance Minister. So much for controls under Mr. Turner, the man who introduced blank cheque government to Canada.
Mr. Turner is promising to move Crown corporations and he is promising many other goodies. We will see in the future whether he will suggest that a cost-benefit analysis be undertaken. However, since he is a true Grit, I would doubt very much it would. The promises of Grits mean absolutely nothing. In the last election we heard the Grits promise cheap gas and lower interest rates. We never did see that come true.
As well, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about the activities of Canada Post which is in direct competition with the private sector and is making things as awkward and difficult as it can for the private sector through its latest venture, Consumers Distributing. I have noticed that a number of Liberal members have complained about the post office venture into Consumers Distributing and I hope that they will put some pressure on the Minister who is responsible for Canada Post so that he will take some direct action to have Canada Post withdraw from the Consumers Distributing venture.
That venture is causing serious concern across Canada. The Canadian Retail Hardware Association has expressed its concerns about a Crown corporation competing directly with that association and its operations. Mr. Thomas M. Ross, the executive director of the Canadian Retail Hardware Association, pointed out the following in a letter to me dated April 25, 1984:
It is my understanding that Mr. Warren's mandate at Canada Post is so broad, that he can really do anything he desires. If this is the case, I am greatly
troubled as to the outcome of this affair since Mr. Warren seems to have "painted himself into a corner".
It is not the purpose of government to compete with the private sector. It is not the purpose of a Crown corporation to receive government hand-outs to establish programs like the Consumers Distributing venture and all the other plans Canada Post may have. The main function of Canada Post is to see that the mail is delivered. When Mr. Warren was questioned before the Public Accounts Committee, he did not give straightforward answers about how this scheme would work and whether it had been costed. We really do not know what it will cost Canadian taxpayers.
Years ago under a Conservative Government, the post office was run in an orderly and efficient manner. As an example of how efficient the post office was under the Diefenbaker Government, the post office made a profit of $1,836,713 in the year 1960. That is a remarkable profit and a remarkable record. However, after the year 1963 and under continuous Liberal Governments, the post office went from disaster to disaster. We have some very serious concerns about Canada Post being a Crown corporation and about its being accountable to Parliament and to the people.
Speaking of control, the list of executives who are employed by Canada Post is unbelievable. There is a huge chart consisting of five pages which breaks down the executive of Canada Post. I doubt if any large multinational corporation could come close to the expansion that has occurred at the executive level of Canada Post. Canada Post has six executive vice-presidents, 27 vice-presidents, 11 executive directors, 69 directors and 18 divisional general managers. Canada Post is certainly solving the unemployment problem for high-priced personnel. I would surely question whether it needs that many executives.
The chart to which I have referred goes on to mention managing directors, treasurers, special assistants, co-ordinators, human resources officers, regional directors and senior directors. The list goes on and on. All of those people have cars and we do not know how many of them have chauffeurs. Dating back to May 24, 1983, I have put questions on the Order Paper to try to get a breakdown indicating what these individuals are paid, how many cars they have and what all the rest of their benefits are. However, I cannot get an answer from a Crown corporation that is supposed to be accountable to Parliament and to the Canadian people.
Another example of lack of accountability is Canadair. In 1976 I warned the Government that Canadair was on a disaster course. At that time I said that the Government should come clean, state its plans and expectations for Canadair and begin revealing true information about Canadair's financial position. However, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), who is now running for the leadership of the Liberal Party, said that things had never been better in Canada and that things were going very well. Well, today we can see the absolute disaster that has occurred with the management of Canadair. We have had to bail Canadair out to the tune of about $2 billion, so far but one can never get a point across to a Liberal.
May 1, 1984

We pointed out that the National Energy Program was on a disaster course. We did not use partisan rhetoric but documented evidence to point out that the Government was on a disaster course. In 1976, we pointed out that Canadair was on a disaster course but Government members do not pay any attention. They simply carry on in their wild and crazy manner. It is the Canadian taxpayer who must pay for that.
Of the group of people who are running for the leadership of the Liberal Party, not one can offer any kind of explanation. The present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has said that he is proud of his 20-year record in government. That must mean that he is proud that there are a million and a half people unemployed, proud that there are record bankruptcies, proud that Canadair is on a disaster course and proud that de Havilland and other Crown corporations are on disaster courses while their executives are getting big bonuses. Lie has said that he is proud. What on earth is there to be proud of, Mr. Speaker? Lie is probably more guilty than all of the rest of them combined because he has been in the Cabinet the longest. Obviously he has no administrative ability at all and is not the least bit interested in seeing that Crown corporations or any other government departments are accountable to the people.
It is unfortunate that the Liberal Party could not find any responsible people to run for the leadership of that Party. It is unfortunate that the Liberal Party could not find people who are prepared to have government departments or Crown corporations accountable rather than making ridiculous promises to taxpayers and saying they will move a Crown corporation around without doing a cost-benefit analysis.
There is no doubt that Bill C-24 is nothing but a smokescreen. This type of legislation would certainly suit John Turner. When he was the Minister of Finance, we witnessed his position on accountability. He was not accountable to the people at all. He should be explaining to Canadians why this is so and he should be apologizing to them.
In closing, I have had other representations made to me about Canada Post going into Consumers' Distributing. The publishers of Ontario are very, very concerned. The Ontario association passed a motion opposing Canada Post being in any business other than the delivering of mail. Talking about delivering the mail, I have reports about big tractor trailers sitting in lots. The computer system does not work and, therefore, the trailers cannot be located. Trailers full of mail are sitting in lots. Thousands of pieces of mail are sitting in lots for a period of up to six weeks. These are the issues we should be dealing with. Let us find out why trailers full of mail are sitting in lots instead of competing with the private sector. I hope the Government will reconsider and get some teeth into Bill C-24.
Financial Administration Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions or comments on the Hon. Member's remarks? The Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Roy).


Mr. Roy:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) whether he is aware of the fact that where advanced technology is concerned, when a country decides to manufacture an aircraft, its efforts are financed by various departments. I am referring to France, Great Britain, Belgium and the United States, which have built aircraft with funds provided by the Department of Defence or other departments.
When the Canadian Government decided to buy Canadair and de Havilland in 1975, Canadair had 750 employees. Today, ten years later, there are as many as 7,500 employees in this high-tech field. When I hear Progressive Conservatives making their usual partisan remarks about Canadair, I wonder whether they are really helping Canadians who are looking for jobs.
In Montreal we now have 16,000 graduates from twenty CEGEPs in this field, who are looking for and are interested in a job in the high-tech industry. That is why Canadair is building an aircraft, why we are developing the aeronautics industry. This is part of research and development and should appear in our appropriations as part of the Canadian Government's investment in research and development in the aviation industry. Unfortunately, this is not emphasized often enough.
I would therefore ask the Hon. Member whether the Government's position is against developing advanced technology. That is exactly the kind of development it has had in mind with respect to de Havilland and Canadair. As far as management is concerned, I believe corrective action has been taken. No one here was particularly proud of Canadair's administration. I have spoken many times about Canadair here in the House. I feel that the federal Government's objective has been to give Canadians a chance to develop expertise in the area of advanced technology. Quebecers no longer want to concentrate exclusively on the so-called soft industries such as textiles or footwear. They want a share of the high-tech industry, and that is why the Government of Canada is investing in Canadair. I intend to keep on defending the appropriation of funds for advanced technology, and I think it is unfortunate that some people are making gloomy speeches about advanced technology because the industry seems to be concentrated in the central provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that countries that have invested in the aviation industry and have developed aircraft have done so, not on the basis of short term operational funding but with funding provided by the Department of Defence. They did so with funds that were set aside for research and technology, for R&D. About Canadair, they keep saying that it is costing us SI.6 million; all kinds of

May 1, 1984
Financial Administration Act
figures are mentioned. It is true! This is the book cost. But if we consider the contribution to technological development and job creation for young people, the investment in research and technology, in research and development, I agree with the Progressive Conservatives that perhaps we have not increased our funding enough. The present rate is 1.3 per cent of the Gross National Product for research and development, which should be increased-and we want to do this-by one-tenth of a percentage point per year. Of course Canadair's operational deficit exists on the books! However, we must not forget the multiplier effect all this has had on the field of advanced technology. In fact, the funds thus invested in advanced technology should be considered a vital contribution to research and development. And that is exactly what it is, Mr. Speaker.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I do not need the Hon. Member to put words in my mouth. I did not mention anything to indicate that we are against high technology. We are talking about management. There has been definite mismanagement at Canadair. I would suggest that he read the Auditor General's report.
The only change that we have seen at Canadair is that the president has resigned. The rest of the staff is there. The de Havilland corporation and the disastrous conditions which exist there, is another example. What did the Government do? It reappointed the same board of directors. Every one of them should have been replaced. On top of that the Government gave them bonuses. They do not deserve bonuses. They are not running the plant properly. The management has not changed at all. That is what we are talking about, not the workers. We are not against high technology.
There is a problem with the Challenger. I understand that that plane cannot be serviced in Europe. If it cannot be serviced in Europe, I do not know who is going to buy that aircraft. There are many executive aircrafts being built in North America; it is a highly competitive business. If we are to compete with the United States in building executive aircraft, we must ensure that we have the right people running the plant or there will be a lot more youth unemployed in the Province of Quebec. They will not be able to sell those planes. They will not be able to service them. The Government simply has not got the right personnel at the top. That is the point which we are making.
We want more accountability. That is what this Bill is all about. If we get the right people, we can start selling the aircraft. It is a tremendous investment. I would suggest that the Hon. Member read the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General is very disturbed about the management and the way it is handling funds. Another example is de Havilland.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the splendid address given by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) and particularly in the examples that he used.
I was amazed at the question which was asked by the Liberal member who seemed to be proud of the fact that as a private enterprise company there were 150,000 employed and now that the Government has taken over there are 600,000 people employed. That is what we are worried about. We are not worried about high technology development. That would save money, not cost money. That should be able to give better service for every dollar spent. Yet Joel Bell, president of the Canadian Development Investment Corporation, said when he looked over the Canadian company that it has become large and cumbersome. That is what the Hon. Member just said he was proud of.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assinib-oine, can we not expect this situation to get worse, if the Liberal regime keeps on going, when Clause 112(4) of the Bill reads:
No action of a Crown corporation, including a transfer of property, is invalid by reason only that the corporation was without the capacity or power to so act.
Anything done by a corporation today is valid according to this clause. I wonder if the Hon. Member would like to comment on this terrible type of legislation?


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, that is typical of the blank cheque government we have. That is a blank cheque clause and it has absolutely nothing to do with proper accountability at all. The Hon. Member is absolutely right. He is 100 per cent right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. It being one o'clock p.m., 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. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it is highly appropriate that I speak on youth unemployment on May Day. Canadian citizens from age 15 to 24 have been in an employment tailspin since the Government took office in March of 1980. The Liberals have cast a deaf ear on those individuals who are crying "Mayday", and the youths who manage to make it to the parachute stage are Roman candell-ing into the depths of despair.
May 1, 1984

During the recession, from June, 1981, to November, 1982, the number of young people with jobs decreased by 388,0000. Those youths accounted for a whopping 68.9 per cent of job losses across the board. Since the advent of recovery, such as it is, only 9.4 per cent of the employment recovery involves Canadian youth. To put this debauchery into perspective, there are 293,000 fewer young people working today than when the Government took over four years ago.
Instead of addressing the problem, the Government has not allocated any more money to youth unemployment this year over last year. The Liberals are guilty of mass pacification. Their training programs are not working, and neither are half of their graduates three months after completing those programs. This is a fine way for the Government to treat the future leaders of the nation. No wonder young people are bitter and see the Government as the enemy. It is time-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is nauseating to hear the Liberals attempting to woo the western farmers now that an election is forthcoming. Where were they when we needed them? They were all busy in the East, ignoring the western farmers whose importance in grain production cannot be underestimated in the Canadian economy.
Initial grain prices are going to drop by from 6 per cent to 10 per cent on August 1, which could mean 40 cents on a bushel of wheat. At the same time the farmers are producing more grain and will be shipping more than anticipated over the 31.5 million tonne cap that the Liberal Government insisted be put into place. What this implies is the increased cost for moving grain will be approximately between 20 per cent to 25 per cent on that amount.
The Government is destroying every incentive for western Canadian grain producers to become more efficient in producing more for the hungry world. The farmers cannot sustain a 10 per cent loss in selling price, and a 25 per cent increase in the cost of moving the extra production.



GARRISON DIVERSION


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, a delegation of government representatives from Manitoba came home from a three-day trip to Washington last week with some good news. After meeting with American officials, they were able to report that the Americans have agreed, in principie, to fund studies for alternative designs for the Garrison Diversion unit. This means that, for the first time in any public way, the American Government is acceding to Canadian requests that this massive irrigation project be redesigned so as not to affect Canadian waters on the northern side of the Continental Divide.
People in Manitoba are happy with this turn of events. We have watched for years as the Americans poured more and more money into the first phase of Garrison construction. Finally, they have agreed to spend some money on ways of altering the project to allay Canadian concerns about biota transfers.
In congratulating the provincial Government on this breakthrough, I want to extend my thanks to federal officials as well, who have been working hand in hand with their Manitoba counterparts in recent years in fighting Garrison. However,
I must point out that this is far from being a complete victory. It is but one, small, albeit important, step. We will continue to monitor the situation and to press our concerns vigorously when and where needed.



YOUTH EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to comment on the remarks of the first Progressive Conservative Member who spoke this afternoon about youth unemployment and the programs made available by the Government. I must challenge those remarks. In the February Budget, the Government earmarked one billion dollars for young people, and the Minister of Finance added another $150 million. In addition, the Government created a Ministry of Youth, and not long ago, Hon. Members heard the Minister of Youth say that a total of $30 million was being set aside for summer job creation. I would also urge my hon. friend to check the programs of the Department of Employment and Immigration, especially the Career Access Program which is aimed at helping young people who, after finishing their education, have entered the labour market, are having trouble finding work and lack financial resources. The Department of Employment and Immigration is prepared to give financial assistance to employers who hire these young people for a number of weeks. The programs are aimed at young people who are looking for a job. The Hon. Member's remarks show how ignorant Opposition Members are of the federal Government's programs and may explain why Canadians have decided to stop supporting them.

May 1, 1984


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, each year some ten young men and women from across the country are carefully selected on the basis of academic excellence and extra-curricular accomplishment to participate in the Parliamentary Internship Program. Through the Program, each of these young people is exposed to the practical day-to-day workings of Parliament, and to the Canadian political system as a whole, by working in an individual Member of Parliament's office of the intern's choice.
One such intern was Maureen Dobbin of Vancouver, British Columbia, who worked in my own office for the past two months. Before then, she worked in the office of the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Daudlin). Last Thursday, in the full bloom of youth, Maureen was killed. An automobile struck her down while she rode her bicycle home from work on Parliament Hill.
Maureen was an intelligent, conscientious, hard working, and deeply religious young woman who was a credit to her family, to the Intern Program and, indeed, if I may say so, to Parliament as a whole. A memorial service for Maureen is to be held this evening at five o'clock at St. Matthias' Anglican Church on Parkdale Avenue. I know all Members of the House join me in expressing to Maureen's father and mother, and to her brother, heartfelt condolences and our own deep sense of loss.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member speaks for every Hon. Member of the House in the words he has just spoken.
* *
*



MEDICAL CARE


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the time has come when all large hospitals and medical schools must have a formal ethics committee. With the current rapid social transformation, and with the continuing advances in medical technology and techniques, doctors and society at large face dilemmas beyond the imagination of other generations.
It is not enough, as is the custom now, for complex ethical decisions to be made at a meeting of the medical advisory board of a hospital, or by a special committee struck for a specific issue. A formal ethics committee in a hospital must consist of medical staff, social workers, religious representatives, and legal advisers. Less formal committees are more ideal in difficult situations such as making a decision as to whether or not to discontinue life support systems and should, therefore, involve only people most closely involved with the patient-the family, the doctor, and the religious adviser.
These groups in their discussions need the expertise of a person trained to deal with the ethical question, that is, an ethicist. Such people may come from a variety of professions, medicine, law, philosophy or theology. At least one year's intense training is desirable to prepare such individuals. There are only a handful of such persons at the moment in Canada. As an important matter of concern, I feel that financial support from the Government is the stimulus which is required to encourage and promote the establishment of the essential services of ethicists throughout our country.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, it was quite astonishing to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in a speech last night to a conference in this building on Parliament and foreign affairs, lay the blame for inadequate discussion of foreign affairs on the Opposition. It is not the Opposition that controls the principal use of House time, but the Government. The Minister then excused the Government's lack of making Statements on Motions by saying the Opposition wants to debate them too much. Mr. Speaker, the Minister cannot have it both ways.
The real reason Statements on Motions have fallen into disrepute is that the Government cannot stand probing by the Opposition into weak and ineffectual policies. What is the Government's stand on the Central America crisis today? What is the Government's stand on the full meaning of the U.S. action on UNESCO? What is the Government's stand on the breakdown in the quest for global economic negotiations? These are but three of the many critical areas of foreign affairs that need debate in the House.
There is an urgent need today for Canada to play a stronger role in international action to put into place a new system of collective security and in implementing a strategy of international development co-operation. Coherent and comprehensive policies on these two paramount issues should be placed before the Parliament of Canada.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, like many Canadians, I noted with interest the meeting of the Liberal leadership candidates in Saskatoon last week to discuss western alienation, and their solutions to that problem. By and large I found the solutions to be generalities and platitudes, and very disappointing. In the 60 seconds I have left I would like to suggest an approach.
May 1, 1984

When you look to western Canada, Mr. Speaker, you must look to the primary resources of fish, mining, forests, agriculture, oil, and gas. You have to remember that these are cyclical industries. With the exception of the Province of Manitoba, our western provincial Governments are gutting these resources. My province of British Columbia, for example, is losing its forests. There is no way that we can keep up with Japan and high technology as an alternative. Therefore, you must look at these problems with a sector by sector approach. For example, we must consider reforestation in forestry.
We must also look at the Pacific Rim to see what markets are there and where we can sell. Finally, we must look at education and planning. People in western Canada want to train, but what are they going to train for?
I suggest that we need a regional plan for western Canada to integrate industries there. We must have a new type of labour relations, perhaps based upon worker ownership. We should look at regional marketing and re-investment of profits that are taken out of the West. Finally, westerners want politicians to look into the future of Canada and tell the West with concrete policies-


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



POLITICAL PARTIES


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, a United States unclassified document reports that, during that country's rescue operation in Grenada, evidence was found titled "Report on the Meeting of Secret Regional Caucus Held in Managua, Nicaragua, January, 1983". This secret document of a subversive strategy meeting lists the NDP of Canada as a strong political ally of the revolutionaries with "good potential".
This "good" revolutionary "potential" has also been discovered by the Committee of Friends of El Salvador. As reported in an interview by the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front, an armed rebel communist organization, an invitation has been extended to the Leader of the NDP to "publicize Canadian's reaction to the Salvadoran situation, and to represent social democracy" in El Salvador.
The people of Canada join me in condemning the NDP for their involvement with the Communist Marxist Leninist and revolutionary organizations, for the persual of a common goal with the Communist Party of Canada to establish a socialist society in Canada-


An Hon. Member:: Sit down.


A. Daniel McKenzie: -as reported in the June 21, 1982, Communist Canadian Tribune, and for their 1981 resolution to terminate Canada's membership in the NATO Alliance.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I am sure the Minister was disappointed at the announcement today of a 1.2 per cent drop in the gross domestic product of the country for the month of February. He must realize that it has been flat for the last six months. That explains why the jobless rate today has resulted from two upward increases in the past two months. What action does the Minister propose to reverse this trend which is putting the skids under those 1.5 million people who are trying to find a job today?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, no doubt the Hon. Member knows that this year the Government is spending more than ever before directly on job creation, either through programs of the Department of Manpower and Immigration or the special recovery capital projects. Several hundreds of millions of dollars are going to be spent in those areas this year. As a matter of fact, it will be close to $1 billion. Therefore, in terms of direct expenditures, the Government has assigned more funds than ever on both the special recovery projects and the direct employment programs.
In addition, I remind my friend that the Government has provided for very generous and large incentives to the private sector to stimulate job creation in that sector. There are tax incentives which run to $2.4 billion over a period of a few years. Most of them will be taking effect this year.
I remind my friend also that, through the simplification we have introduced to the taxation of small businesses, that sector is going to benefit from a $150 million decrease in taxation provided in the last Budget.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, these direct job creation programs of the Minister are simply not working. That was the reason for the question.


BUDGET POLICIES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have here the January edition of Statistics Canada's Current Economic Analysis which is riddled with signs of weakness in the economy at that time. It talks about the Conference Board index of consumer confidence dropping 20 points in the fourth quarter. It talks about the softness in investment plans in Canada, which is clearly going to lead to more unemployment here. Finally, it talks about the weakness in labour market conditions in western Canada as a result of slowing activity in the primary industry, the construction industry, and the service industry. It also reflects a weakness in investment demand.
In the face of this clear evidence of weakness in the economy before the Minister brought down his Budget, why did he

May 1, 1984
Oral Questions
proceed with the Budget which, in his own words, was intended to do nothing to change the course of the economy?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to some weakness in western Canada. He knows, for instance, that one of the big factors in the last several weeks has been the lock-out in the pulp and paper industry in British Columbia. That lock-out was decided upon by the industry. That comes under the responsibility of the provincial Government. A number of steps have been taken. I am happy to see that the industry is going back to work. I hope that this will indeed produce results in the very near future. That lock-out had a very significant negative effect on British Columbia in the last several weeks.
As far as the general trend is concerned, I indicated that indeed my Budget was planned to reinforce and consolidate the positive trends that were taking place in the economy. I had concluded that this was no time to proceed to any radical change in the general thrust of government policy. I am still of that view.
As far as the general performance of the economy is concerned, I continue to believe that we will experience strong growth this year. Those forecasts are supported by private and public forecasts, both national and international.


EFFECT OF INTEREST RATES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about projections. We are talking about what has happened in the last six months. It is not a short term phenomenon. It is something that started back in August. The Minister has his head in the sand.
The dollar has weakened. It is weak now. It hit 77.5 today, and the only response the Minister has made to that is to increase interest rates. That in itself led to further weakness in the already weakening economy over the past six months.
Will the Minister not admit that this high interest rate policy will only add to the plight of the 1.5 million unemployed men, women, and young Canadians who are looking for a job today?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that we do not have a high interest rate policy; we have had a policy for the lowest possible interest rates in this country. As a matter of fact, if the Hon. Member wants to check the facts, today the prime rate in Canada is half a point below that of the United States. This is in spite of the fact that a few years ago it was as much as 4 per cent more than the United States. Certainly the policy that has been pursued over the last few years has been very much in the direction of a lower interest rate policy and the lowest possible interest rate policy. I would be very interested to hear from my friend what interest rate policy he would like to follow himself.
As far as the dollar is concerned, indeed the Canadian dollar has weakened against the United States dollar, but I would
like to remind him that if one takes the weighted average measure of overseas currency during the last month, the Canadian dollar has increased by 2.1 per cent.
The Canadian dollar declined 0.9 per cent against the U.S. dollar since March 30, but it has increased by 4.9 per cent against the Deutschmark, 2.9 per cent against sterling, 4.5 per cent against the Swiss franc, and 0.9 per cent with respect to the yen. This is what has happened to those other currencies vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar during the same period: the Canadian dollar had declined less than the Deutschmark, less than sterling, less than the Swiss franc, and was at the same level as the yen.


DOLLAR'S EXCHANGE VALUE-REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUDGET
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. If the Minister is so proud of the activity of our dollar on foreign exchange markets, why is he pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the market to support the dollar? The fact of the matter is that our dollar has dropped from 81.5 cents to 77.5 cents and is going down. The only response by the Minister is to raise interest rates. He knows that interest rates are rising dramatically.
Surely the direction of the country is at fault. Surely we should have a new Budget, a new proposal and a new, honest projection. When will the Minister produce new projections and new spending controls that somehow change the economy around and get at the fundamental weaknesses of the Canadian economy?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this a good example of the contradictory policies being recommended by the Progressive Conservatives. The Hon. Member who spoke previously asked what we were going to do to create more jobs and complained that the Government was not spending enough money to help the unemployed. Now we have the next Progressive Conservative Member pointing out that new spending controls should be introduced, that expenditures must be cut back, and so forth.
The Hon. Member knows perfectly well that in Canada, interest rates have not gone up as much as they did recently in the United States. He knows perfectly well, for instance, that today, the prime rate is 11.5 per cent in Canada and 12 per cent in the United States. He also knows perfectly well that in Canada, we cannot have an interest rate policy that is substantially different from that in the United States, and that we cannot afford to let interest rates in Canada drop substantially below those in the United States. I challenge the Hon. Member to come up with a policy and to make a specific proposal that would achieve this. He knows perfectly well it is not a realistic solution.



May 1, 1984


MINISTER'S PLANS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, is the reason the Minister is looking for another job because the going has got tough and he will do a John Turner, and abandon the finance portfolio to someone else?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am not looking for another job. I have been very honoured and privileged to be asked to let my name stand for a very prestigious position, and I have agreed to do that.


INCOME TAX
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will understand the kindness with which I say, God help the world community if he is accepted. I have a question for the Minister of Finance on this May Day, a symbolic day for ordinary people all over the world. Today is also the day in Canada which comes 24 hours after families have had a last chance to submit their income tax returns.
My question concerns income taxes. Please note, Mr. Minister, that in 1981 there were 239 Canadians earning an average of $635,000 who paid no income tax. There were another 1,200 Canadians earning $100,000 who paid no income tax. At the same time an unemployed man or woman with one dependant would have to pay $600 in income tax this year.
If there is any compassion, any sense of justice left in the Liberal Government, will the Minister bring in a measure before we recess to ensure that wealthy Canadians at last pay their share of taxes?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member looks at the record and compares the situation in Canada with that of other industrialized countries, he will find that the system in Canada in terms of distributing the tax load amongst the various levels of income in the country is as fair as that of any other industrialized country. He says that some lower income Canadians are required to pay so much. It will depend on how they arrange their affairs under the Income Tax Act. There are provisions in the Income Tax Act that provide, for instance, that one can claim losses in one year against one's income, and is dispensed from taxes in that year, but is required to pay in the following years as one is making profits.
There are a number of provisions that have been passed by Parliament, of which I am sure the Hon. Member has been made aware. I would invite him to examine those provisions. He will find that the arrangement is that those who have income are entitled to a number of deductions under the law, but are also required eventually to pay those taxes as the claims that they are making in a particular year, whether in
Oral Questions
terms of depreciation, claims against losses, et cetera, are used up and they have to pay taxes.


John Edward Broadbent: That answer is just short of being absurd. The Minister ought to know that an unemployed man or woman who must pay $600 in income tax has almost nothing under this law provided by a Liberal Government by which they can provide for any deductions at all. They have to pay their share. We are saying that it is time millionaires in Canada paid their share. That is the point.


UNITED STATES TAX SYSTEM-REQUEST FOR SIMILAR PROVISION IN CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has suggested a comparison with other countries. First, I would say that there are at least a half dozen countries in western Europe that have a tax system that is more fair. However, with reference to the United States, a country closer to home, I would ask him if he is aware that even under President Reagan the wealthy must pay a minimum of 20 per cent tax on their income? If the Minister is concerned about any justice at all, will he at least bring in a requirement that upper income Canadians have to pay a certain minimum of their tax burden so that all other Canadians who must pay their taxes do not pay the whole load in this country?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed examined in great detail the provisions of the American legislation in this regard. I have examined this very point very carefully, and have considered it as an option. I decided not to proceed with it when I found the number of loopholes that exist in the United States in their regime. The number of advantages to the wealthy in their system and the comparison of advantages to the better off in the United States appear to show that there are significantly more advantages in the United States than in Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister has frequently been accused of being unfair or unjust, but very rarely has it been suggested that he is talking nonsense. With respect, I say that is what he was just doing. I indicated that in the United States every rich person must pay a minimum of 20 per cent. In Canada, rich people get away without paying a cent. We in this Party think that is unfair. We think it should be changed.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Would the Minister agree if we have, as I suggested, 239 Canadians earning an average of $635,000 who pay no tax, and another 1,200 Canadians who earn $100,000 and pay no tax, that their taxes have to be made up by ordinary workers, and by the unemployed, and by pensioners? If the Minister of Finance thinks that if one group who pays nothing has to be compensated by others, in effect subsidized by others, is he telling us that this is just? Is this what the Liberal Party believes in? Is this the

May 1, 1984
Oral Questions
new Liberalism? Or is new Liberalism merely a slogan, a covering for the old Liberal injustice?


Mr. Nielsen:: Ask Roberts.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about a minimum of 20 per cent. The question is 20 per cent of what? That is what I told the Hon. Member in the previous answer. Indeed, once you look at the American legislation and look at the definition of income, you end up with a situation where that so-called minimum is one that has a very different notion or concept than it would have in Canada if we were to follow the same rule. I invite my hon. friend to examine the American legislation very carefully and to inquire, to investigate, and to study the matter, as I have studied it. He will, I hope, come to the same conclusion that I have come to, that this is not an appropriate route to follow for this country when you look at our whole legislative arrangement and our Income Tax Act.
The Hon. Member talks about a number of people not paying taxes as if these people, year after year, were not paying taxes. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. Maybe they were not paying taxes this year because they had accumulated losses or depreciation, or had investments which they were entitled to deduct. By not paying taxes this year it will mean that they will be paying taxes next year, the year after, or the year after, because the depreciation you take this year is something you have to account for later on. This is the situation under the Income Tax Act, and it has been the situation in practically every other industrialized country of which I am aware.


THE ADMINISTRATION
[Stage Direction]
LIBERAL PARTY LEADERSHIP CAMPAIGN-ROLE OF JIM Macdonald
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, on April 11 the Prime Minister, in a very unequivocal statement to me in the House, for which I congratulated him, said:
But of course there should be no active involvement of such staff-
That is, ministerial or exempt staff-
-in the leadership campaign in an overwhelming way, or any other important way, without that staff either resigning or asking for a leave of absence.
Yesterday I believe the Prime Minister was in the House when he heard his Minister of Justice, of all people, indicate that his publicly announced leadership campaign manager, one Jim MacDonald, is still on the government payroll and will be until at least the end of June-and that is significant- through the laundering technique of being paid as a ministerial speechwriter from a paper company which, in turn, is receiving government funds. Has the Prime Minister taken any action, or will he, to terminate this very obvious attempt, manoeuvre, to get around the Prime Minister's own very worthy guidelines?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the exchange yesterday between the Hon. Member and the Hon. Minister of Justice. I understood the Minister to say that Mr. MacDonald was not being paid by the Government, that he was a participant in a company which did contract with the Government, and that company was receiving money from the Government on contract, but that Mr. MacDonald himself was not. That is what I understood the Minister to say yesterday. I see the Hon. Member nods in assent. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I can see that is untoward in that.
I am sure even in the Tory leadership campaign there were active people in various companies dealing with the Government, whether it be the public utility companies, or the Bell Telephone company. I am sure some of the corporate elite supported Mr. Mulroney's campaign. The fact that the company to which they belonged was contracting with the Government did not cast any doubts on the conduct of those members. In other words, if the facts are as I understood them, and as the Hon. Member understood them, I do not see that they contravene the guidelines.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Allan Frederick Lawrence: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, really relates, I suppose, to the spirit of the whole necessary activity of establishing conflict of interest guidelines. I merely ask the Prime Minister to put his mind to a manoeuvre that obviously circumvents the spirit of those guidelines. Unless the Prime Minister is asking for each of the leadership campaign candidates not only to reject his policies but also to reject the spirit of this own guidelines, surely the spirit is that there should be no appearance of conflict as well as no actual conflict? There are other cases, Sir. Here is a very obvious one in which that spirit is being circumvented. It is a very easy manoeuvre. Surely the Prime Minister still has enough power in his Cabinet to indicate that this sort of thing should stop. We are using taxpayers' funds to further a leadership campaign, and that should not happen.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member recognizes that my guidelines apply to ministerial staff. Mr. MacDonald ceased, quite some time ago, to be ministerial staff. That should settle the matter of my guidelines.
There is another question of whether companies which contract with the Government should have none of their people working politically in a campaign of one Party or another. That is another matter. I have no power to direct companies to permit their staff to act in that way.


Jack Wendele Shields: Not much.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certainly my power is over Ministers and their staff, but not employees of companies which happen to contract with the Government.
May 1, 1984


REVIEW OF FEDERATIONS' PLANS
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport. In a letter from the Minister sent to the individual amateur sports federations, in which he said he has approved an advance of fitness and amateur sport contributions for this fiscal year, he states "it is my intention to review the total plan and contribution request for each national organization on an individual basis."
With some 62 sports organizations, will the Minister tell the House how long this individual, comprehensive review will take to complete, and will he assure the House that by delaying further the release of the balance of the funds to the sports organizations he is not jeopardizing our athletes' competitiveness in the Summer Olympics, and internationally?


Hon. Jacques Olivier (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may correct my hon. friend and say that Canada has more than 62, in fact it has 70 amateur sport for federations and 15 for physical fitness. All we did was ask 22 federations located on Vanier Street to observe and implement the provisions of the Official Languages Act, and federations receiving 50 per cent of their budget from the federal Government and with 20 per cent Francophones among their membership, to try to provide services in French. We did not ask employees to become bilingual. We did not ask the coach to become bilingual. We merely asked these federations to provide services to Canadian athletes in the language of their choice. That is what we asked them to do!


Jennifer Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is in effect holding the sports federations hostage.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER UNDERTAKE CONSULTATIONS
Jennifer Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, the Sport Federation Executive has on repeated occasions attempted to meet with the Minister, has attempted to consult with the Minister, and has attempted to discuss this and other issues with the Minister, but the Minister repeatedly refuses to respond.
Will the Minister assure the House that he will immediately consult with the Sport Federation Executive and resolve this matter in a fair and conciliatory manner, and stop using the threatening and almost blackmailing tactics which he has publicly demonstrated in the past?
Oral Questions


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I may be mistaken, but there seem to be two different positions within the Progressive Conservative Party, one being that Francophones and Anglophones in this country are entitled to receive services in their own language ... Or else the Party Opposite is being hypocritical-


Some Hon. Members:: That's right!


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: -Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is giving all Canadian athletes, from Moncton to Halifax to Vancouver, a chance to receive services in their own language. Mr. Speaker, we are also providing funding in the amount of $30 million per year, which comes out of our taxes, and it is being given to people who are entitled to receive these services in their mother tongue. If you do not agree with that, stand up and tell the country!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM FRANCE
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of a delegation from France, headed by the by the Hon. Michel Rocard, Minister of Agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HOUSING
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Could he inform the House when he will introduce legislation to give effect to two measures announced in the Budget Speech, first, the mortgage rate protection plan and, second, the proposal to give borrowers the right to prepay their mortgages at any time?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, indeed we have had extensive consultations with the housing and construction industry, with consumer groups and with financial institutions. These consultations have been concluded. The legislation is being drafted. I hope the legislation will be introduced in the House before the end of May and that it will receive the prompt consideration of the House and the support of all Parties so that it can come into effect before the summer.

May 1, 1984
Oral Questions
I would like to add that under the budget proposals every mortgage holder who has taken out a mortgage after March 1 will be eligible for the program when it comes into effect. Those who have taken out mortgages since March 1 will be eligible under the new program as soon as it is approved by Parliament.


REQUEST FOR FREEZE ON MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I am sure he will have noted over the weekend that Richard Thomson, Chairman of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, indicated that he expected the prime rate in Canada to reach 15 per cent within the next 12 months. At the same time, Earl Bederman, Vice-President and Chief Economist for The Permanent, said:
People have been getting bargains in mortgages. They're damn cheap in relation to other rates.
Taking both of those statements into account, and recognizing that at the present interest rate only 14.5 per cent of all renters in Canada will be able to qualify for an average mortgage, will the Minister, in anticipation of the projected increases which both those individuals are telling us are inevitable, freeze mortgage interest rates for the next six months in order to ensure that we will no longer tolerate the kind of gouging which has gone on through the financial institutions of Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think it is rather interesting that the New Democratic Party should rely on the presidents of Canada's major banks to tell them what is going to happen during the next twelve months.


Ian Deans: We are not going to the banking leaders in order to find out what will happen. We have been predicting that this would happen, for the better part of the last year.


REQUEST FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT OF MORTGAGE RATES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister take the necessary steps to ensure that mortgage interest rates are not permitted to rise to the 15 per cent, 16 per cent and 17 per cent levels predicted by these banking leaders? Will he do what was done in the United States and separate mortgage interest rates from other interest rates to ensure that those who want to buy, or who want to maintain ownership of the homes they have purchased, will be able to do so within their means?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that in the past, the Government has implemented measures to help those in greatest need and protect them against high mortgage rates.
I pointed out that we did not expect increases on the scale mentioned by the Hon. Member. In the past, when mortgage rates rose to excessively high levels, we showed that this Government was prepared to take the necessary measures to ensure that those in greatest need would be protected.
I would remind the Hon. Member that our last Budget included a proposal for a mortgage rate protection program that would provide protection against rate increases when mortgages are renewed.
I would therefore urge the Hon. Member to support this legislation when it is introduced in the House, instead of adopting the purely negative and pessimistic attitudes of the New Democratic Party.


TRUST COMPANY'S REQUEST THAT MORTGAGORS WAIVE RIGHTS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one of the Hon. Member for Trinity and is directed to the Minister of Finance. Is the Minister aware that at least one financial institution-and I am speaking of Sterling Trust-is presently asking mortgagors to waive any rights they may have under the legislation which is to be brought in with respect to mortgage bonuses effective March 1? At least Sterling Trust is asking people renewing mortgages to waive their rights. What is the position of the Government when financial institutions-and there may be more-are asking ordinary Canadians facing mortgage interest rate hikes to waive their rights to discharge without a bonus?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this particular case nor of the case mentioned by the Hon. Member in connection with Sterling Trust.
I find it rather surprising that a trust company should resort to such measures at this time. However, I must say that I hope people who deal with these companies will not hesitate to consult other trust companies that do not resort to such measures.
At the present time, there is no lack of funds on the money market for mortgage loans, and I hope that people who find themselves in a situation where lenders impose such terms upon renewal, or prior to approval, of certain mortgage loans will not hesitate to seek out other institutions to obtain more favourable terms.


SHOE IMPORT QUOTAS-GOVERNMENT DECISION
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. A long time

May 1, 1984

ago, the Minister received a request from the Shoe Manufacturers' Association of Canada for an extension of import quotas. Can the Minister inform the House whether his Government has made a decision, in response to repeated requests from the Shoe Manufacturers' Association of Canada?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet reached a decision in this respect.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER PROVIDE DETAILS
Roch La Salle: I wish to thank the Minister for his eminently clear answer. In that case, can the Minister inform the House when he will be in a position to reply to the Association and to thousands of employees who are very anxious to know the Government's answer? When will the Minister be able to inform the House, as concisely as he did just now, on what day the Government intends to make this decision?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, Cabinet will be considering the situation in a matter of weeks.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, responsible for the Status of Women. In May 1982, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, I tabled a report on "Violence in the Family", which dealt more specifically with the situation of battered wives.
One of the report's objectives has been met, which was to make Canadians aware of a situation to which no one can remain indifferent. In the light of the testimony received, Committee members made seventeen recommendations which included financing transition homes, a research program, setting up agencies and also the subject of federal-provincial relations in this area.
Five departments were involved in the report's recommendations.


Some Hon. Members:: Order! Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order! Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to put his question?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the Members opposite are not interested in the contents of this report.
Oral Questions
I would like to ask the Minister responsible what her attitude is and what the Government intends to do about the specific recommendations for the departments which I mentioned earlier.
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset that I am somewhat disturbed by the derision with which the Hon. Member's comments were greeted, because it is a particularly important report. I would like to assure the Hon. Member that a great deal of work has been done as a result of the standing committee. All 17 recommendations have either been implemented or are being actively pursued. I should like to point out that a federal-provincial working group has been put together and will be making a final report at Niagara-on-the-Lake at the end of this month. That report will be made public at that time.


IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a supplementary question to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. It is two years since that committee filed this report. We have heard many comments from the Minister and her colleagues that sometime there is going to be action. I want to know when there is going to be action. For two years there has been absolutely nothing.
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands has once again not done her homework. As I said, all 17 recommendations are either under active pursuit or are in place. Indeed, the work that is being carried on by the federal-provincial working group has been received enthusiastically by my provincial counterparts. I would advise the Hon. Member to come in for a briefing to see exactly what has been done. She would then know what she is talking about for a change.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: There has been absolutely nothing done, and you should be ashamed.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. With regard to the privatization of Northern Transportation Company, independent appraisers have now gone into the company. Will the Minister explain why a 30-year employee, who headed up property development, building design and maintenance, who had a very good understanding of the real work of that company, was fired without cause? Why was the employee fired just when

May 1, 1984
Oral Questions
independent appraisers are going in to evaluate the work of Northern Transportation Company?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member may or may not know, the reason why we have an independent appraisal is because we had taken a decision along with the board of the company to offer the Crown corporation for sale to private sponsors. It was felt that under those circumstances it would be important to have an outside appraisal of the various costs and assets of the existing company. The outside appraisal has nothing to do with whatever management decision was taken in relation to this individual. If the Hon. Member refers the information he has to me, I will be glad to look into it.


EVALUATION OF COMPANY ASSETS
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Transport assure this House that the independent appraiser will evaluate the company, not on the basis of book value of property and assets but on the market value? The book value assets are listed in the annual report at $49 million, whereas the property alone of Northern Transportation has a value of $150 million to $250 million. He should be aware, particularly when-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member ask his question?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I always respect the opinions of the Hon. Member for Athabasca. I am sure his comments relating to what should be considered as part of the evaluation will be referred to the company that has been commissioned to undertake that appraisal. Considering that they are the professionals in the field and will be following the normal accounting financial practices, I suggest we leave the appraisal up to them.


COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR EMPLOYEES
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the recent decision of the Commissioners of Internal Economy, all Liberal Cabinet Ministers, to appeal the Labour Relations Board decision to allow Parliament Hill employees to bargain collectively and exercise the democratic rights enjoyed by all other employees in Canada. Is it the policy of the Government to subvert the democratic rights of this group of employees by blocking the certification bid, without the consent of Parliament, I might add-


Mr. Speaker:: This is not a matter which can be subject to questioning this way. The matter is sub judice.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. At page 13 of his Budget of February 15 the Minister indicated that he was going to do another review of Section 31 of the Income Tax Act and that he intended to establish a consultative group. Has the consultative group been set up and, if so, who is on it?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I must advise the Hon. Member that a number of preliminary steps have already been taken within my department and that I should be able to announce the composition of this task force very shortly.


TIMING OF REVIEW
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, in the House in February the Minister indicated that he hoped it would be done quickly and that it would be reporting back within three months. Is he deferring action and ignoring the plight and the interest of farmers, or why could he not get this done a little more quickly?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think I already answered this when I replied to the first question.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport. The Minister has established a committee under Mr. Justice Hall to look at the question of payment of benefits under the Crown legislation. There have been widespread complaints across Western Canada that the composition of the-


Mr. Benjamin:: Which Hall?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Gordon Hall-that the composition of this committee does not reflect the interests of western grain farmers. Is the Minister receptive to enlarging the committee he has established with respect to the method of payment of the Crow benefit? Is he amenable to the suggestion of having more producers on that committee?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that the Hon. Member and I probably read different reports coming from different sources. My estimate is that the composition of that committee has been quite widely
May 1, 1984

applauded in western Canada for the basic reason that they are independent and will be able to give a rational objective of the different proposals relating to the method of payment. The Hon. Member knows how difficult it would be to have found senior representatives of the producers community who were not in some way deeply involved in the debate which has gone on for the past two years. He knows full well that those individuals who were appointed represent both knowledge of the grain business and the general economy of the country and, at the same time, have not been in any way attached in a deeply inventive way to one point of view or the other. That is what we want to achieve, an independent, objective evaluation of the different methods, and not to have one side or the other predominate.


REPRESENTATION OF WESTERN GRAIN PRODUCERS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the western grain producers do not expect to dominate this committee. Rather, they would like some reasonable representation on the committee because only they understand the problems of western Canada, as the Minister will appreciate. On behalf of western grain producers I would again ask the Minister whether or not he is amenable to increasing the membership on that committee so that western grain producers could have reasonable representation.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to give the same answer to the same question. No, I do not intend to increase the membership, but I can give the Hon. Member the assurance that the points of view and interests of the different groups in western Canada as well as other parts of Canada will be well represented as these different groups will certainly be consulted. However, I still believe that it is important to have a group that, while knowledgeable, has not been a part of the past debate and competition, so that Parliament may receive a very honest, rational, objective assessment of what the best method of payment might be.


PETITION
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on Monday, April 30, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Privilege-Mr. Sargeant PRIVILEGE


MR. YURKO-PRINTING OF SPEECH IN HANSARD
Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has received notice of matters to be raised by the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko).


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of personal privilege which affects my performance in this House. As a Member of this House, I fully expect that when I rise to speak to the assembly, what I say is accurately recorded and then distributed from the House through Hansard to thousands of Canadians including my constituents.
Yesterday, Monday, April 30, 1984, I had the privilege of speaking on second reading of Bill C-231, an Act to amend the Canadian Constitution Act in regard to the tenure of senators. This was my Private Member's Bill. I spent hours preparing this-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is making the point that there is apparently some concern about whether or not a proper version of Hansard was produced yesterday with regard to his remarks. The Chair will certainly take note of that and investigate it. I recognize the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Inter-lake (Mr. Sargeant).


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that I have a chance to put my point of privilege before you.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made his point concerning Hansard.


William J. Yurko: I have not made my point.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member cannot make a lengthy speech. The Chair will look into his complaint and will take the appropriate measures.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I intend to have my say.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please resume his seat? The Chair has indicated that the Hon. Member has raised a matter which will be investigated.


William J. Yurko: I expect the House as well as you to hear my point of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the Hon. Member please resume his seat? I recognize the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake.


William J. Yurko: You have not heard my question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


MR. SARGEANT-STAFF SALARY BUDGETS
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which relates to a memo that I received from you, Mr. Speaker, relaying a decision that was made by the Commissioners of Internal Economy which changed the way in which Members of Parliament could
3290

May 1, 1984
Point of Order-Mr. Yurko
administer their staff salary budgets. I would like to raise two points with regard to that matter, Mr. Speaker.
As we all know, Members' staffs are not well paid when compared with persons doing the same or similar jobs but directly employed by the House of Commons or by Cabinet Ministers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is seeking to raise a matter of privilege which is not a matter of privilege. He may have a grievance. If so, the appropriate channel is the Management and Members' Services Committee. It is not a matter of privilege before the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Statements by Ministers. I recognize the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight).


Mr. McKnight:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On checking the Order Paper, I find that there is no record of any changes being proposed to the western grain stabilization fund. I would presume that the Government, in ordering the business of the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We were dealing with Statements by Ministers.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I was waiting a minute to see whether the Minister might say something.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Point of order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member cannot repeat the matter that he attempted to raise before. The Hon. Member brought to the attention of the House his concern about an improper version of Hansard. The Chair has ruled that it is sufficiently serious and the Chair has instructed that the matter will be investigated. The Hon. Member cannot make another speech on the matter.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member on a point of order which presumably is very different from the matter he previously raised.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the "blues" specifically recorded what I said last night but Hansard has a totally different version.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has raised a question about whether or not a proper version of Hansard has been produced. He cannot labour that point any further.


William J. Yurko: Yes, I can.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please resume his
seat?


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 262, 662, 739, 762 and 772.


Mr. Young: 1.	Did the Department of National Health and Welfare conduct a review of the feasibility of developing standards for magnetic induction for hearing aids with regard to their compatibility with hearing aids and, if so (a) has the review been completed (b) will the results be made public?
2.	Does the Department plan to address the question of international hearing aid standards?
3.	Did the Department have an advisory committee on hearing aids and, if so, does the Department plan to re-establish the Committee?
4.	Does the Department plan to require all hearing aid manufacturers selling their products in Canada to publish in their specification data the frequency response and distortion measurements of the induction coil of their hearing aids?


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The Department of National Health and Welfare conducted a study of the feasibility of re-introducing mandatory standards for hearing aids under the medical devices regulations of the Food and Drug Act. Such standards would include provisions for electro-magnetic coupling to telephones, (a) The study was completed on September 12, 1983. (b) Copies of the study report are available on request from the Health Protection Branch.
2.	Since the majority of hearing aid brands sold in Canada are imported, the question of international hearing aid standards and their compatibility with Canadian regulations will be given careful consideration.
3.	No. The Department of National Health and Welfare has never had an advisory committee on hearing aids and does not at present plan to establish one. The Department of Communications (DOC) has recently created an Ad Hoc Technical Committee on Telephone Access for the Hearing Impaired. An officer of the Department of National Health and Welfare is a member of the DOC committee. The question of telephone-hearing aid compatibility will be a major part of the committee's work.
4.	If regulations for hearing aids are introduced, requirements for disclosure of technical performance specifications will be included.
May 1, 1984


Mr. Knowles: 1. On February 14, 1984 were any persons in (a) Canada (b) each province, in receipt of the Old Age Security pension and, if so, how many?
2. Of these recipients how many persons in (a) Canada (b) each province were in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement and, of these, in each case, how many were in receipt of the full amount?	
1.	Old Age Security
Yes	Pension
(a) Canada	2,486,086
(b) Newfoundland	47,285
Prince Edward Island	15,513
Nova Scotia	98,146
New Brunswick	75,176
Quebec	607,375
Ontario	905,662
Manitoba	127,112
Saskatchewan	121,984
Alberta	170,356
British Columbia	311,789
Yukon Territory	752
Northwest Territories	1,335
International Operations*') 1') Represents the persons paid under International Agreements. Note: The figures given are for the month of January, 1984.	3,601
4. The Number of Persons outside Canada receiving Old Age Security Pension	
Yes	
Canada	33,723
Newfoundland	217
Prince Edward Island	79
Nova Scotia	887
New Brunswick	1,031
Quebec	7,096
Ontario	12,926
Manitoba	2,063
Saskatchewan	770
Alberta	1,503
British Columbia	5,436
Yukon Territory		
Northwest Territories		
International Operations*')	1,715
01 Represents the persons paid under International Agreements.


Mr. Fretz: Did the Government approve funding for an emergency shelter for selected officials in New Brunswick and, if so (a) what will be the final cost to the taxpayer (b) who will be provided shelter (c) what are the criteria for the selection of those sheltered?


John Leslie Evans: The project has been approved in principle only; no funds have been allocated as yet.
(a)	Preliminary estimates indicate a cost of approximately $3.3 million.
(b)	The basic purpose of the facility is to provide fallout protected living and working accommodation to people carrying out functions essential to the continuation of established
Order Paper Questions
3.	For (a) Canada (b) each province, what average amount was received as a Guaranteed Income Supplement by recipients of the Old Age Security pension?
4.	Do the answers to the above questions take into consideration persons living outside Canada who are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension and, if so, how many of such persons are there, and if they are considered as belonging to the various provinces, what is the number for each province?
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Yes.		3. Average Amount of
2. Guaranteed Income	Full Guaranteed	GuaranteedSupplement	Income Supplement	Income Supplement1,247,654	304,002	$173.3637,701	15,708	196.9110,743	2,920	186.9562,593	17,300	180.1749,021	14,613	184.26375,057	111,194	179.84373,557	68,975	163.8363,704	12,270	168.4459,267	13,222	174.8380,451	18,392	172.16132,404	27.870	168.68380	212	211.451,075	821	224.671,701	505	183.23
authority and the provision of essential services in the event of a nuclear attack on North America. The facility will also serve as an operating centre for peacetime emergencies.
(c)	The criteria are determined by the functions to be performed as described in (b) above.


Mr. Fretz: 1.	Was a Fuel Purchase Diary published by Statistics Canada and, if so (a) how many were published (b) what was the total cost to the taxpayer?
2.	Was consideration given to a less costly method and (a) if so, what was the result (b) if not, for what reason?
3.	What percentage of people surveyed answered the questions?
4.	Was a bilingual Diary sent to persons who speak only English and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: Statistics Canada reports:
1.	The Fuel Consumption Diary is a data collection document provided to potential respondents to the Fuel Consumption Survey conducted by Statistics Canada on behalf of Transport Canada. Respondents are requested to record basic information about the vehicle and details for each fuel purchase made during a one-month reference period. One copy of the diary is mailed to the principal driver of each of 1,780 sampled vehicles per month. The unit cost of the diary is approximately $1.50, resulting in a monthly cost of $2,670.
2.	Consideration was given to alternative data collection methodologies. Given the identified information requirements,

May 1, 1984
Financial Administration Act
the use of the diary was deemed to be the most cost effective method.
3.	Of the persons requested to complete the Fuel Purchase Diary, approximately 70 per cent provided the required information.
4.	Bilingual diaries were sent to all survey respondents to allow the respondent to provide the requested information in the official language of his/her choice.


Mr. Towers: What provisions are made for pensions for widows of deceased veterans and what is the (a) total number of pensioners (b) number of pensioners by province (c) total amount spent on such pensions (d) the average amount of such pensions?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The Pension Act, which is administered by the Canadian Pension Commission, provides for payment for a full widow's pension to the surviving spouse of a deceased member of the Armed Forces if it can be established that his death was attributable to military service, or if he was or should have been in receipt of pension for a disability or combination of disabilities assessed at 48 per cent or higher at the time of his death. The Pension Act also provides for the payment of a proportionate pension to the eligible surviving spouse of a pensioner who, at the time of death, was in receipt of a pension paid for a disability assessed between 5 per cent and 47 per cent.
(a) 21,489 full widow pensioners, 19,040 proportionate widow pensioners, (b) data on widows not maintained in accordance with province of residence, (c) $238,971,408 per year, (d) full widow pensioners $815 per month, proportionate widow pensioners $127 per month.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet (for Mr. Gray) that Bill C-24, an Act to amend the
Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to speak on this Bill today. I have had the opportunity to read Hon. Members' remarks as recorded in Hansard and to hear some comments made by Hon. Members about the Bill. I do not choose to repeat a number of those points today.
I believe it is of unusual interest to note that when we speak of Crown corporations these days, we are for the first time in our history speaking more and more of Crown corporations in general. That was not our practice in the past. Historically, Crown corporations have been brought to the attention of the public and discussed in the House primarily in specific terms. We have discussed a specific Bill or a specific matter relating to a specific Crown corporation for a specific purpose. By and large we have not for many, many years had any significant debate regarding what is to be the role, function and purpose of Crown corporations.
Throughout our history, Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been very pragmatic about what Crown corporations are supposed to do. We have not engaged in any excessive ideology about them. We have throughout time tried to organize Crown corporations to do specific jobs. These specific jobs were primarily jobs relating either to a specific social objective or very often relating to questions of economic growth. In the early part of this century in particular, we found that Crown corporations-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Could we have order in the House, please?


David Edward Crombie: Thank you for doing your best, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, Crown corporations have traditionally been used for specific purposes, either for pursuing social goals or economic growth. In the early part of the century in particular, Crown corporations were primarily concerned with economic growth. That is why when we come to a debate on the role, purpose, function and accountability of Crown corporations, we are not using language which we have ever used before.
The Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada have been able to depend upon the understanding of most Canadians that Crown corporations were established for a good and sufficient purpose-to achieve either social or economic goals. That, of course, lasted until the alarm bell was sounded by the Auditor General's report of 1976. As in Lewis Carroll's novel, Crown corporations just "growed up like Topsy". There was no coherent sense of what their purpose was in a new time, in a new age, in the 1970s.
It is worthwhile repeating the sentence that the Auditor General used in 1976 in his annual report. It is simple but devastating. He said that we now have a "weak and ineffective
May 1, 1984

control of public spending through Crown corporations". That was in 1976. His report to Parliament referred to the weak and ineffective control of public spending through Crown corporations.
Six years later he had this to say in his report of 1983:
Parliament is becoming further isolated from an increasing portion of government activities. The growing practice of using Crown-owned corporations to conduct a widening range of government activities has so strained the capability of the existing accountability framework that Parliament may not be able to exercise its fundamental responsibility for overseeing receipts and expenditures of public funds.
The Auditor General's report of 1983 hearkens back to his earlier report of 1976. He noted that during the six-year period, nothing was done to improve the situation. It was worthwhile for him to note, as he did in his report, just where we had been for the last 20 years in terms of the size and the value of Crown corporations.
In 1962, 22 years ago, there were 28 Crown corporations in this country which controlled $8.4 billion worth of assets. There were 28 Crown corporations; $8.4 billion worth of assets. Twenty years later, in his report of 1983, he noted that there were over 300 Crown corporations employing 263,000 people, with assets of $74 billion and liabilities of $63 billion. We had gone that far in 20 years with almost no debate on what was the purpose, function and accountability of Crown corporations.
That is why we on this side of the House have been saying to the Government for years-certainly for the six years that I have been here: "You have heard the Auditor General's report, you have read the report, you have established the Lambert Commission, and you have heard from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts". Why has nothing been done? All the boards, commissions and special purpose bodies that were established in order to deal with the problem were totally ignored by the Government.
That is why we looked forward to Bill C-24 when it came in. We were looking to see how close it would come to a similar Bill which was established by the Government of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) in 1979-80.
As other Members of the House have noted, the Bill that was brought in four years ago by the Government of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead was vastly superior to the Bill that is before us. The current Bill deals not at all with the one fundamental question that most people walking the streets of the country, if they have any interest in Crown corporations at all, simply want to know, namely: Who is responsible, who is accountable, for federal Crown corporations in Canada? It is a question that might be asked at the provincial level where there are many, many Crown corporations as well. Indeed, there are public utilities at the municipal level which carry out similar functions to that of Crown corporations.
The questions that people ask not only refer to financial management. The real question is: Who is accountable? Is it the Minister? Is it the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray)? Is it a specific Minister in the House? In Bill C-24, is the Minister made responsible? Can Canadians now say: "We
Financial Administration Act
know the Minister is responsible"? If you read the Bill, the power and responsibility of the Minister is totally stood on its head because the Minister has responsibility but no power. This Bill takes power away from the Minister and gives it to the Cabinet.
If it is not the Minister who is responsible, then maybe it is the board of directors of the corporations. That is not true either. If you read the Bill you will note that the powers which would normally be assumed by a board of directors are also sucked away and given to Cabinet. If it is not the Minister and it is not the President of the Treasury Board and it is not the board of directors, then maybe it could be Parliament. After all, when the Auditor General first of all sounded his alarm in 1976, it was Parliament he was talking about. Seven years later in his 1983 report-since his former report had been ignored by the Government-he said on page 15:
I remain concerned-
Seven years later he is still concerned because nothing has been done.
-about the Government's and Parliament's monitoring and controlling of Crown-owned corporations. During the past year, circumstances in a number of Crown-owned corporations have further illustrated the existing deficiencies. For simplicity, I describe only the events involving Canadair Limited and the Canada Development Investment Corporation ... to illustrate the continuing accountability deficiencies.
He goes on to point out that we are talking about six basic ways to control corporations. First of all is authorizing and mandate, Financing, directing, controlling, reporting and auditing. I will not go through all of those points. The questions related to reporting, directing, auditing and controlling have been dealt with by other Members.
I want to talk about the first one. The Auditor General's report makes it clear that when he talks about accountability, he talks about authority and mandating. That is the best example that we can use and that is what I would like to talk about. He indicated that the essence of accountability, in the first instance, finds itself not in financial management, important though that may be; not in reporting mechanisms, important though they may be; not in financing frameworks, important though they may be. The essence of accountability for Crown corporations lies, in the first instance, on the ability of Parliament to control the authority and the mandating for the establishment and creation of a Crown corporation. That is the point.
In the first instance, at birth, is the right and ability of Parliament to hold Crown corporations accountable to the people of this country. It is in the first creation of the Crown corporation that this must be established. I looked at the Bill to see whether or not the Government had taken that first fundamental step. Did the Government in Bill C-24 provide for the important thing? As the Auditor General understands and as everyone understands, the important thing is for Parliament to be able to control the terms of reference for the creation of a Crown corporation. Indeed, that is such an important and fundamental principle that the Minister put it in his press release; he said that Crown corporations should be created by Parliament. The Bill does not clearly state that. It

May 1, 1984
Financial Administration Act
is not honestly exposed by the Government. There are no less than at least four ways, even with this Bill, that Crown corporations can be established without this Parliament even having a look see or a say in it. First, Mr. Speaker, there is no authority in this Bill for this Parliament to have anything to say about the creation of Crown corporations which are subsidiaries of current parent corporations. As anyone knows who has looked at the literature, the biggest proliferation of Crown corporations has been from parent corporations establishing subsidiary corporations. Bill C-24 does not change that one bit. Crown corporations can go on creating subsidiaries as long as they want without reference to this Parliament.
Second, Mr. Speaker, a Crown corporation can be established without reference to this Parliament if its power derives from an already existing Act of Parliament. And there is an already existing Act of Parliament which allows a Crown corporation to be established without having to come to this Parliament. Some of the most enormous Crown corporations can be established that way. That is indisputable. Large Crown corporations can be established without reference to this Parliament simply because there is an ancient authority in an existing Act of Parliament.


Mr. Peterson:: That is not true.


David Edward Crombie: It is true. Third, Mr. Speaker, a Crown corporation can be created by a special Bill, and in doing so the Government knew that it had to come to Parliament. That is why, Mr. Speaker, in that part of the Act where it knew it had to come to Parliament, it limited debate. In creating a special Bill where it knew it had to come to Parliament, it decided it was going to limit debate; and if you read the Bill, Mr. Speaker, you will see it has limited debate to seven hours in the House of Commons and to 30 days in committee. Government can create any corporation it likes in a new Bill and this Bill contains a clause which closes down Parliament's ability to debate it beyond seven hours in the House and beyond 30 days in committee.
Fourth, Mr. Speaker, there is still a very open question with which the Government has not yet dealt, and that is whether or not this Bill is stronger than Section 16 of the Interpretation Act which gives prerogatives to the Cabinet to create Crown corporations without reference to Parliament.
Those are four clear examples, Mr. Speaker, within this Bill, which is supposed to control Crown corporations by giving accountability to Parliament, which shows that in fact the Government can establish Crown corporations, or Crown corporations can be established, without reference to Parliament.
The short point, Mr. Speaker, is that this is not a Bill which expands Parliament's rights and ability to control Crown corporations. What it does, Mr. Speaker, is expand the Cabinet's power to run Crown corporations without reference to Parliament. That is what it does. As a matter of fact, on page 22 the Auditor General in his report of 1983 said in the shortest way I know, and it is not changed by the Bill:
Taken together with my earlier words about the Financial Statements of the Government of Canada, the result is-
I underline this to the Minister now in the House:
-nothing less than the fragmentation of the sovereignty of Parliament.
That is exactly what it is, Mr. Speaker, because all that has been talked about is the power of the Cabinet, not the power of Parliament. We have not been talking about the ability of Parliament, acting on behalf of the people of this country, being able to control the power and authority of this Government to deal with Crown corporations.
I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that the establishment of financial and management systems for Crown corporations, of reporting systems and so on, are very important and fundamental to this Bill, and fundamental to everything about this place is the power of government and the ability to control it. Throughout the whole history of parliament, not only this Parliament but of all Westminster parliamentary systems, the rights of the Speaker, my rights as a Member of Parliament, the rights of a Minister and, indeed, all the rights of the people of this country have been linked to the ability of Parliament to control the expenditures of government.
If you read your history, Mr. Speaker, you will find that the most important debates affecting the rights of individuals in this country and the rights of Hon. Members of this House have been directly related to the ability of this House to control the expenditures of the Crown. All the old battles between kings and parliaments were precisely on that point. Our system of parliamentary democracy exists or does not exist on the basis of our ability to limit the power of government. Our ability to limit the power of government rests directly on our ability to control expenditures and hold the government accountable for those expenditures. That is a simple fact of the history of Westminster parliaments.
That is why people attach so much importance to it, and they finally woke up, Mr. Speaker, when they saw us going from eight Crown corporations to over 300 Crown corporations, when they saw us move to $63 billion from the figure in 1962, when they saw the massive change in the power of government with no control by this Parliament. They instinctively know that if the people of this country, through Parliament, cannot control the expenditures of government, and in this instance the Crown corporations, then its ability to control the power of government generally is fundamentally flawed.
People do not pay attention to Parliament, Mr. Speaker, on a daily basis. Some people do but most people do not. They go about their daily affairs, trying to organize their lives as best they can. What they hope will happen, Mr. Speaker, is that the accountability which they assume Parliament has to hold the Government responsible is in place. That is why, Mr. Speaker, in the Final analysis, what we are talking about is not finance. What we are talking about is not finance but the ability of the people of this country to control the power of government through Parliament.
The people know one other thing, Mr. Speaker. They know that this Bill is a whitewash because they know the Govern-
May 1, 1984

ment has had the ability to act responsibly but has not done so. That is the truth of it all. No tinkering with the structure of government, bad as it is, can change the face of a bad and irresponsible government.
The only reason we have this Bill before us is that this Government has been badgered to bring something forward; but it is thin and pale and will not restore the ability of the people of this country to hold this Government accountable through this Parliament.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that this Bill provides many more provisions for Crown corporations and for the Government to report to Parliament. The Hon. Member spoke a great deal about reporting, directing and monitoring activities. This Bill sets out a continuous flow of information, from Crown corporations through the responsible Minister, to be tabled in the House and put before parliamentary committees for review and action. The Hon. Member has talked about accountability. The Bill provides that each Crown corporation will have a responsible Minister who will have to account to the House, and to the parliamentary committees, for the actions and activities of each individual Crown corporation.
The Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) has suggested that this Bill does not provide for the control of Crown corporations because there is no control over subsidiaries.
The corporate plan of each Crown corporation which will be tabled in the House requires that if extensive new plans are being made by a Crown corporation it must reveal details of new subsidiaries being established. In any event, they would have to be approved by the Cabinet.
The Hon. Member spoke about the fact that at the present time Crown corporations can be established under the Canadian Business Corporation Act without reference to Parliament. That has been done in the past. Under this Bill a motion will have to be brought before the House. There will have to be 30 sitting days for debate in committee and at least seven hours for debate in the House before a Crown corporation established under the Canadian Business Corporations Act can be established. That motion before the House will set out the exact areas of activity in which the Crown corporation can engage. Likewise, there is no time limit on the establishment of major Bills such as that for the establishment of PetroCan or the Bill relating to CDIC. The Member talked about Section 16-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair cannot allow the Hon. Member to go on at length. Both comments and questions should be brief and to the point. The Hon. Member has had three minutes so far. I think we ought to give the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) an opportunity to respond at this time, after which, if no other Member rises, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary could continue.
Financial Administration Act


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to respond as I believe I made the arguments initially. The Hon. Member indicates that if a new Crown corporation is established it will have to come before the House. I wanted to indicate to him clearly that if it is a subsidiary it goes to Cabinet. That does not allow the House to deal with it directly. That is the point in terms of subsidiaries.
I do not know what he was going to say about Section 16. My point in terms of the ability of the House to control the creation of new Crown corporations, let alone to manage the ones we already have, is that the power has been given to the Cabinet. It has been taken away from the Minister and from the House and has been given to the Cabinet. This is nothing more or less, Mr. Speaker, than yet another document by which the Cabinet of the country sucks away power from the House and from its own Ministers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Further questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Mr. Tobin:: I listened with a great deal of attention to the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) as he is a Member for whom I have a great deal of respect and time whenever he is on his feet in the House or in any other forum.
I would like to make a comment, Mr. Speaker. In listening to comments from Members opposite about this particular Bill I find that this debate has become an opportunity for Members opposite, and for that Party in particular, to vent their spleen about Crown corporations more than an opportunity to look at the particulars of this Bill. I have been here for two days listening to all the speeches and I find the discrepancies in them somewhat akin to the kind of discrepancies we observed during the leadership convention which that Party recently held. On the one hand, Mr. Speaker, there was the Member


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the Hon. Member resume his seat? The Hon. Member cannot at this time make general comments on all the speeches he has heard so far. His comments must relate specifically to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Rosedale.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is my intention. I did not want the audience, as large as it is, to be lost without its having heard an appropriate preamble.
I wanted to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I am trying to decide who speaks for the Conservative Party in this regard. First, we have had spokesmen for the Conservative Party suggesting that Crown corporations be sold off. The Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) suggests that CN should be sold off. Then the Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney) says that no one would buy it and that it is a mad proposition. We now have the Member for Rosedale being nit-pick about the Bill by condemning the notion of having Crown corporations in a country as large and diverse as Canada.

May 1, 1984
Financial Administration Act
I feel I must make this comment, Mr. Speaker. Petro-Canada and the attack on it was a good example. Yet we found out in recent days that the Leader of that Party had in fact made a very bad investment in the offshore oil and gas action on the East Coast because of the NEP policy associated with Petro-Canada. I am saying that that Party will better serve this country and itself if it does away with nit-picking and silly criticism and starts to come forward with some policies. There is a terrible vacuum in this House, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing but an echo of rhetoric and criticism in the House.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why do you not set an example?


Brian Vincent Tobin: It flows across the floor. It is troublesome to me, Mr. Speaker. My ears simply cannot stand it.


Mr. Thomson:: Poor baby.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Neither can the Canadian people, Mr. Speaker. Witness the latest Gallup poll. Wake up gentlemen. Where are your policies?


Gordon Edward Taylor: What is your question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Rose-dale (Mr. Crombie).


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member who just spoke did not engage in rhetoric and simply confined himself to the Bill.
The Member may remember, and you may as well, Sir, that in my opening remarks I indicated that, except possibly for the Hon. Member who just spoke, we have not treated the matter of Crown corporations as a question of ideology. There were pragmatic reasons why certain Crown corporations were established over time and others let go. They have served this country well on a number of occasions at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. My concern was to have the Hon. Member and the Government understand that the nub of the Bill ought to be the accountability to Parliament, and not the increasing power of the Cabinet. That remark still stands.


John William Thomson: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the accountability process, my colleague referred to the fact that one of its essential elements is the mandate of a particular corporation. I totally concur with him. One of the problems which we have experienced with Crown corporations over a period of years is that in terms of mandate it is a moving target. What Parliament approves gets changed in succeeding years. There is no accountability process to catch up with that moving target.
By what means does the Hon. Member for Rosedale believe Parliament will come to grips with this changing mandate which takes place year after year? How can we hold a Crown corporation accountable to Parliament when, of its own volition, a Crown corporation chooses to change that mandate as the years go by?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I think there are two approaches. I have already mentioned one. There must be an
understanding that the power of the Cabinet needs to be circumscribed. Also, Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we understand that, as a consequence of that, we should expand the powers and responsibilities of the committees of the House. In my view this Bill is almost as much a part of reforming Parliament as it is of specific financial accountability. That is why the Auditor General couched his own recommendations many years ago in terms of parliament's accountability, and not simply the Cabinet's ability to control.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The House will now proceed to debate. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell).


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this legislation. Many Canadians are concerned at the proliferation of Crown corporations which consume such a large amount of Government spending and appear very often to have little accountability. It is important to review and re-evaluate the purposes and performances as well as the financing of Crown corporations. This Bill gives us an opportunity-although we should not have a time restriction on it- to look at Crown corporations as a broader concept rather than just look at the immediate aspects of the Bill.
The Conservatives sound as if they would do away with most Crown corporations. That is what we usually hear from them day after day. However, when it came to the crunch when they were in the Government, they were defeated because of the Crosbie Budget which threatened to do away with PetroCan. I can say that this specific item in the Budget was the reason that our Party did not support the Tory Budget and that our caucus voted against the Tory Budget.


Mr. Stevens:: Shame!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: We have been blamed ever since for doing the dirt to the Tory government.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Look at what you have done.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Of course, the Conservatives have never forgiven us. While they are still crying about that, they still refuse to accept the facts about why we voted against that Budget.
It is interesting to note as well that, despite their distortion of the facts, they have made a campaign of this across Canada. I noted that the former Prime Minister eventually recognized the political reality, after he was out of office of course, and backtracked on his earlier policy regarding Petro-Canada. I am sure that the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), who is very mum on this subject, will probably do the same.
Like many other Crown corporations, I am sure that Petro-Canada needs review, reorganization and certainly more accountability. We would agree with that. However, Canadians realize that it is in their interest to have a Canadian-controlled public company which will plan and develop energy resources for Canada, not only for the present but also for
May 1, 1984

future generations. I suggest that, in the interest of all Canadians no private company would hold that long-term view. I ask what is wrong with having service stations if they help finance this venture? It seems to me that our friends on the right would agree that this is probably good business practice.
Crown corporations are established in order to provide essential public services which private corporations could not provide to consumers in an equal and affordable way.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Like the Challenger.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I am stating what I feel Crown corporations should be doing.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Should they get rid of the Challenger?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: As public organizations, they should have a social purpose as well as make a positive contribution to the economy. Since Crown corporations are financed by all taxpayers, they must be accountable not only to the Cabinet but also to Parliament. Parliament has a responsibility to make them accountable to the public at large.
Crown corporations should have clearly defined goals, a long-range plan which is known to the public and into which the public has some input. There should be a built-in process of evaluation and financial accountability. Boards of directors should be established and appointed democratically, with nominations from the public. While people with expertise should be included, why should we not consider consumer representatives from the public at large for board positions? Since these corporations are funded by all Canadians, fiscal accountability and sound management is even more essential in public corporations than in private businesses.
I agree completely with the Conservatives that the Liberal practice of political patronage in the appointment of Liberal hacks to Crown corporation boards is undemocratic and really prevents the necessary reforms which are needed in many of our corporations from being made.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What about NDP hacks?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: However, the first and only memorable policy statement that the Leader of the Conservative Party made, at least the only one that I remember, is that he would aggressively appoint Conservatives to positions of power at all levels of Government.


Mr. Blais:: That's right.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: This sounds like patronage to me, perhaps more direct and not as sleazy as patronage in which the Liberals engage, but blatant political patronage nonetheless. If the Tories are elected they will need to continue all the Crown corporations that exist now, and perhaps create a few more just to find places to reward all of their friends.
We have a tradition in Canada of government responsibility for providing transportation, communication and social programs to meet the practical needs of all Canadians at prices they can afford. When I travel to other countries, particularly
Financial Administration Act
to the United States, I am very proud to hear people, such as artists, speak with some wonder about the fact that we have government support for so many of our institutions. Of course, because of our widely dispersed population and the long distances involved in northern and rural communities, government subsidies must be provided to supply adequately and equally such goods as mail, televison, telephone and fuel services, to mention only a few, to the remote areas. A private corporation could not do this in the interest of all citizens because profit is their first motivation and it could not make much money by running rural phone or mail services.
I believe that Crown corporations that operate on a user pay principle should be carefully scrutinized. I believe these principles run contrary to the reason for setting up Crown corporations, which are really meant to ensure that there is a fair service to meet the needs of all Canadians, regardless of income.
I have been referring to Crown corporations that are primarily in the service field. With respect to the question of economic development, the function of Crown corporations becomes less clear to me personally. Our Party favours a mixed economy in which the Government takes initiatives to develop our resources to ensure environmental protection, sound planning and renewed resources for future generations. When private corporations refuse to take risks to develop necessary industries or new areas of employment, the Government often must act directly.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Why?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: It did this recently. Perhaps my friend could ask that question of his colleagues from the Atlantic region about the Maritime fishing industry when there was a question of there being no industry without government intervention. I might say in that respect that we in the West only wish that equal government attention was given to the fishery on the West Coast.
Regardless of the purpose of Crown corporations, whether it is primarily social or economic, they should be well run organizations with sound fiscal policies and accountability to the public not only through Cabinet but also through Parliament. Unlike most businesses, the public, including consumers, should be encouraged to participate at all levels wherever possible, particularly at regional levels. They should have the opportunity to run for the board of directors. Many Crown corporations are much too large, institutionalized and bureaucratic. Inevitably this leads to a concept of top-down management which, of course, is dominated by political influences, particularly as the policy makers are usually appointed by the Government.
A policy of decentralization should be established wherever a government service is provided. Local communities should be involved in the regional and community planning process. Canada Mortgage and Housing would be a good example of this.
One example of major reform and decentralization of a large centralized Crown corporation was the recent establish-
May 1, 1984

Financial Administration Act
ment of the Canada Port Corporation. The establishment of local port corporations which gave considerable autonomy in the management of ports in the local region to a local port board is a considerable improvement on the old National Harbours Board. Ports can now approve funds for improving facilities without having to go to Ottawa and the Cabinet only to wait months and probably in the end not get the kind of improvements they wanted, as has happened previously.
However, although the Minister was urged in committee and in the House, he did not trust democracy enough to go all the way. In typical Liberal fashion, he had to maintain political control by personally appointing the board of directors. He refused to allow open nominations, which would have been one way of circumventing political patronage. He also excluded local municipalities and communities, which are very much affected by local port development, from having any kind of meaningful participation in the policy and planning structures.
Another long established and essential Crown corporation is Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In this instance it seems to me that there is a confusion in roles between the needs of consumers who need affordable housing and should have a right to it in our country and the desires of housing developers who want to make as many bucks as possible by having housing under the control of the private sector, provided, of course, that there are lots of government subsidies and tax write-offs. CMHC is not accountable to the elected Members of this House. There is no housing committee in the House of Commons. There is no place where we can discuss the housing needs and problems of our constituents and of the country as a whole. Housing is a very critical and basic need affecting every family. Surely this is a prime example of a Crown corporation that should be much more accountable not only financially but in the establishment of its goals and priorities for housing programs.
Decent, affordable housing should be the right of Canadians. It should not be left to the whims of bureaucrats or of HUDAC developers to establish housing policy. Yet that is what has happened. There should be long-range planning based on population trends. That is another thing that does not happen. There should be a sound controlled mortgage assistance policy so every time we have a new budget we do not need to have a new program that nobody understands and that lower income people usually cannot use. There should be assured financing for social housing so that societies that are planning housing should not have to do all their planning for a year or two, putting all kinds of effort and funds into initial planning, only to find in the end that there are no funds available.
The development of housing is a social investment. It creates jobs and is an industry that should be stabilized rather than being based on ad hoc programs which vary from one political budget to another. This corporation and the housing industry itself should be accountable to a committee of Parliament to develop sound, long-range non-partisan planning for the future
housing needs of Canadians. Accountability involves more than financial accountability. There must also be accountability for policy objectives and for the quality of service in relation to the social goals and needs of our people.
I want to cite two examples of CMHC policies which have been of considerable concern to this Party and to many of our constituents. As I have pointed out several times in Parliament, CMHC has chosen to ignore the fair wages and hours of labour provisions of the Canada Labour Code as a result of pressure from private, non-union construction firms and the powerful HUDAC lobby. This means that housing societies in Vancouver, which in many cases have been helped by pension funds provided by construction unions, are not allowed themselves to employ union construction firms to build their housing. Highly skilled and experienced union tradespeople are unemployed in very very high numbers in British Columbia, as they are in other parts of Canada, while CMHC, by its policy, prevents housing societies from using union labour and using firms which are unionized.
CMHC and other Crown corporations should be required to adhere to decent labour standards under the fair wages provisions. I was told by CMHC officials that because it was a Crown corporation they did not apply. I think those labour standards should apply. Also, I think policies such as mandatory affirmative action should apply equally in Crown corporations right across the board.
The unfair negative evaluation of CMHC social programs in the news last year is another example of a biased kind of report done by private people with vested interest. This definitely influenced public opinion across Canada very unfairly. We had no chance to hear about this in the House or to have alternate points of view presented in committee. The City of Vancouver had a housing researcher who used the same facts, analysed them and came to a conclusion the opposite to that in the CMHC report, that there should be continued support for co-op and non-profit housing, with some changes perhaps in the application of it. There was no opportunity to hear, as I said, any of these reports or to hear from witnesses from housing societies and co-ops in a committee of the House. There was no chance for us as Members to participate in representing the views and the needs of our constituents. I am pretty sure we have all had practical experience as housing has been very difficult in many areas of Canada.
The negative impact or impression that was left on the public was a great disservice to people who have worked for many many years in housing societies and co-operatives to build affordable housing, who had put in hours and hours of volunteer time and who had developed housing for low and middle income people. Certainly there is room for improvement and modification in most Crown corporations, and CMHC and the non-profit housing program is no exception. This could be done again with sound objective research, wide involvement and with accountability to Parliament and to the public in general.
I do not have time to go into other examples in the time that I have left, Mr. Speaker. I know I have concentrated mostly on
May 1, 1984

the kinds of Crown corporations which relate more to social policies, my area of concern in this caucus as housing critic. However, we all and the public share a very great concern. I think the negative image of Crown corporations is certainly exemplified most in the examples of de Havilland and Cana-dair. 1 am sure most Members have mentioned the $2.6 billion of government funds allocated to these two companies. Executives in de Havilland got bonuses to the tune of $155,000 while workers were laid off. de Havilland spent over $500 million, tax dollars again, to cover its debts for 1983 alone. The CDIC also gave bonuses to seven senior officials to the tune of $82,000. We can go on and on about executives and the gifts they receive.
Another area where more accountability is needed is from the very minister responsible for this situation, a minister who is not elected and is not responsible to this House. We have no way in which to question him. He is like an emperor in British Columbia as the Senator appointed for that territory. He makes decisions with no reference back to democratic government and to committees which should be established in this House.
Finally, in reviewing this Bill I share the concern of other Members. It is unfortunate that we are restricted by imposed time limits. We all agree that changes are needed to make Crown corporations more accountable. There should be regular reviews, not only budget reviews but reviews of programs in terms of the service the people of Canada deserve. The mandate of those corporations should also be reviewed. It is very doubtful that this Bill will allow accountability to Members of Parliament and through us to the people of Canada. It is the people of Canada after all who pay the bill for all Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker. People are also paying in some cases for inefficiency, political expediency, when they should be paying for a much more efficient service.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments? The Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens).


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, according to the standard the Hon. Member laid out to the House with respect to whether or not it is necessary or possible to have Crown corporations, could she indicate whether there are any Crown corporations which the federal Government now owns that she feels are dispensable? If so, what are they?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel, partly because we do not have a way of getting information in this House, that I am the person to evaluate every Crown corporation in Canada. I think that would be pretty presumptuous of me. I have some personal opinions, but I do not have enough data to mention this in the House. I think there should be a way of making evaluations. Most institutions are self-perpetuating, that is the nature of large institutions, but there should be times when some Crown corporations are terminated. What we would be most concerned about is whether they are of value of the people of Canada, whether tax dollars are justified from that point of view and whether they are run efficiently. I think that would be the criteria at which we would look.
Financial Administration Act


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) mentioned that a number of our Crown corporations have become "far too large". Would the Hon. Member agree with the comment that Crown corporations can add personnel more easily to their payrolls than can private industry and that consequently in most of our Crown corporations there is an over-abundance of staff? That was certainly found to be true in Canadair. It had 22 vice-presidents and now it has only 12. They have retired a few and have done away with 338 jobs. This means that 338 people were being paid for their good looks or for some other reason.
If the Hon. Member believes that a Crown corporation can act as efficiently as a private corporation, which is under the control of someone who wants to make a profit from the operation, how would she or her Party control the tendency to increase the number of employees in Crown corporations, because they are being paid, not from a payroll as a result of its operations, but from tax revenues of the country?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very valid question. Having worked in a public agency myself, I can say that it is natural, as is the case in the Public Service, for bureaucracies to tend to grow and perpetuate themselves. Therefore we have to build something into the system to reverse this. It does not mean that the purpose of the corporation is invalid or that there is not a need for a particular Crown corporation. There may or may not be a need, but I would think that it comes back to the debate about accountability.
I am not an expert in this area, but if the Government really wanted to improve the situation-and certainly it has a responsibility to see that tax dollars are used efficiently and effectively-there could be an ombudsman service or an auditing service which would have real clout and could make changes. That is why it is important to have more accountability to Parliament or to bodies established for that purpose.


Gordon Edward Taylor: There is another point to which I listened with interest when the Hon. Member was speaking. That was the matter of homes for our people. I do not think there is any disagreement among Hon. Members of the House that we want Canadian families to own their own homes. I assume that is an objective of the NDP as well as of the PCs and the Liberals. In meeting that objective we have to be realistic in terms of setting the final prices of homes. Otherwise we simply bar scores and perhaps even hundreds or thousands of families, particularly young families upon marriage or with small children, from ever buying homes. Some of my own constituents have said that they would love to own homes but that they are unable to accumulate that much money.
Also the Hon. Member mentioned union wages and fair wages. I believe in fair wages, because often union wages are not fair. Plumbers who are charging $18 to $25 per hour shove the price of homes impossibly high so that people cannot buy them. Also there are carpenters who are insisting upon $12 to $16 per hour, whereas others are quite prepared to work for $8

May 1, 1984
Adjournment Motion
or $10 per hour. I believe in fair wages and I believe in unions. However, how does the Hon. Member reconcile keeping the final prices of homes within reach of our people when hourly rates go into the building of homes?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: In relation to the first question, while I think there are many Canadians who want to own their own homes, time have changed. It is interesting that in urban settings well over 50 per cent of the people are tenants, many of whom are so by choice. We cannot always think about this question in traditional terms. However, certainly those who have families should have the right to own homes.
When I talked about housing, I talked about shelter in a general sense. That included rental housing and co-operative ownership, which is different but somewhat like a co-operative rental situation. We must have a range of ways for people to accomplish this. We must have fair wages. When we talk about fair wages legislation, it does not mean that people have to unionize if they do not want to. It comes somewhere within the realm of ensuring the payment of sensible and practical wages so that workers are not exploited by getting excessively low wages.
I also referred to housing developments, non-profit developments or co-operatives where larger housing developments are being built and are more deserving of unions. Quite often in the case of individual homes people want to put in some of their own labour. However, there is no question that the role of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation-and this was the point I was attempting to make-should be to develop programs from a long-range point of view, not just this ad hockery. These programs should allow for choices, for people within certain income ranges to get into starter homes with some assistance, and for people who simply do not have downpayments to have co-op housing available to them. It is also very important to have decent rental accommodation, including rental accommodations for people with higher incomes. We are talking about a range of programs, but certainly CMHC should be responsible for them in the interests of Canadians, not in the interests of private developers.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Pembina (Mr. Elzinga)-Supply and Services- Procurement of armour-plated automobiles, (b) Reported deficiencies in vehicles; the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker)-Regional Development-Lingan-Phelen coal mine project in Nova Scotia, (b) Lack of employment; the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett)- Labour Conditions-Unemployment in Atlantic Canada- Request for Minister's advice, (b) Plight of jobless.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet that Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: For debate, the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis).


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair should have seen the Hon. Member on the government side. I apologize to the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings. The Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson).


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Hon. Member of the Opposition for standing aside at this particular time.
First, I want to commend the Opposition for having established its task force to look into Crown corporations. Also I commend the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson) for the work he did in chairing that task force. I believe this approach, followed through to its logical conclusion by Members of Parliament, will make us all better equipped to deal with the very complex issues that we face. This type of undertaking to develop policy should be made far more on the basis of a House approach, mandated by Parliament. I do not necessarily believe that it should be restricted to the particular Parties in Parliament and be funded by those particular Parties.
Having said that, I find it very difficult to understand why the Hon. Member for Calgary South, in commenting on this particular Bill to regulate and make Crown corporations accountable, said that the Bill was an almost incomprehensible piece of legislative mishmash and gobbledegook. The Bill is very complex. It is not going to be perceived at one glance as solving all of the problems we face with respect to Crown corporations.
On the other hand, the main point I want to make today is that this Bill responds almost measure for measure to the concerns that were raised by the task force of the Official
May 1, 1984

Opposition. It is perhaps not unusual, but very beneficial that the recommendations contained in the provisions of Bill C-24 almost mirror the recommendations put forward by the Opposition task force. These were the two groups researching this issue. They came to almost identical conclusions. This is why this Bill should not be the subject of partisan debate. I believe we should get this Bill into committee as quickly as possible in order that should there be any technical problems inherent in it, we can deal with them on a non-partisan basis, and this House has demonstrated that it is prepared to deal with it on that basis.
I wish to deal with the recommendations of the Tory task force. I will go through them one by one in order to show how we have responded to those concerns and our solution in dealing with them. The first is the requirement for the submission of business plans by Crown corporations, that they be tabled in Parliament and be examined by appropriate parliamentary committees. That is in our Bill.
Second, the Opposition study recommended clarification of the role of the Auditor General in auditing Crown corporations as well as clarifying the relationship of the Auditor General who audits Crown corporations with the private sector auditor. The role of the auditor and the Auditor General is very clearly set out in this Bill. This is what we have done. I might also add that we went to considerable lengths to weigh carefully the views and the recommendations made over the past years, not only by the Auditor General but also by the Public Accounts Committee and the Lambert Commission. In essence, we have chosen to follow Lord Macauley's famous dictum, namely, choose wisely, consult liberally. I know the "consult liberally" aspect of this dictum might be anathema to the Opposition, but I suggest that that is the way, through consultation, and through careful study that is epitomized in the results of this Bill. That is the way in which we have been able to come to the conclusions we have arrived at.
The third aspect of the Tory report calls for improved accounting procedures and practices. Our Bill sets out, in a way that matches the view of the Opposition task force, the concerns about ways of improving accounting procedures and practices. We go one step further. We take the additional step of requiring by legislation that statements set out information clearly and in accordance with the major businesses or activities of each Crown corporation. In other words, we are using a new type of accounting approach for Crown corporations whereby each of their individual businesses, even if they are all contained within one corporate shell, have to be accounted for separately. That was not the generally accepted accounting practice previously.
With regard to some of the remaining recommendations of the Opposition task force, you will find slight differences between our approach and that adopted by the Opposition. I am prepared to elaborate on these differences at the present time, but because they are largely technical in nature, I believe they would be best resolved without polemics in the House and on television. We should sit down in committee and work through these areas in a very non-partisan manner. Since we
Financial Administration Act
are not there, and with the emphasis on trying to get us there sooner, let me deal with these points.
First, the Opposition seeks a rationalization in the relationship of Crown corporations to the Government based on a return to effective, individual ministerial responsibility. We have done this. Each Crown corporation is the specific responsibility of a Minister who is available in this House. Each Crown corporation is that Minister's responsibility to account for to this Parliament. A Minister can be called to account publicly at any time in this House for every one of our Crown corporations.
I am wondering what the implication is of the criticism of the Opposition. Is it that there should be only one Member, whoever looks at the financial statements, business plans or ideas of a Crown corporation? We do not feel that that is realistic. We do not know of any system in the world where only one Minister is involved in looking at the business plan and in paying attention to the public policy aspect inherent in Crown corporations or in any particular Crown corporation. For example, why should the designated responsible Minister not be able to consult with the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board, the Prime Minister, or even the whole Cabinet, on particular issues affecting Crown corporations? It is only good advice. It is good practice to seek the advice and recommendations of other Ministers, particularly those who have a particular concern about a Crown corporation.
In our Bill we have clarified this relationship between the Government and the Crown corporation and strengthened the existing system whereby an individual Minister is designated for each parent Crown corporation. The role of the Government per se is clarified. Surely that must have been what the Opposition was seeking. Why then the hassle on these particular provisions?
Another area where the disagreement is more rhetoric than actual is the classification system, the way in which we have classified Crown corporations as to whether they have largely a social or commercial purpose, whether or not they are in competition with the private sector, and the way we have scheduled those Crown corporations. Our approach has been to segregate the commercially-oriented Crown corporations according to the extent to which they are exposed to competition from the private sector. That makes eminent good sense. If the Crown corporation is competing with the private sector in a particular area, why should that Crown corporation not have some of the advantages in a competitive marketplace that the private sector corporation has?
This does not necessarily mean that there should be a Crown corporation in an area which is being adequately served by the private sector. It does not mean that we as a government want to hold on to our Crown corporations. In fact, in a companion Bill before Parliament dealing with the Canada Development Investment Corporation, part of the specific mandate is articulated there. The Government is to continue the policies of trying to dispose of Crown corporations which are no longer essential to the public purposes and to the service of public

May 1, 1984
Financial Administration Act
needs in Canada. That is one area in which I think the Official Opposition and the Government would find accord and harmony. Again, there is no reason for bickering or hassling.
Another area in which I believe the apparent differences between the Government and the Opposition are more perceived than real is that with respect to the acquisitions and new incorporations of Crown corporations; in other words, the establishment of new Crown corporations to undertake certain activities. We have proposed that the Government be permitted to incorporate a parent Crown corporation under the Canada Business Corporations Act.
In some cases, one would have to agree with members of the Opposition who say that it would be most appropriate if there were to be a special Act of Parliament passed such as the ones which have been passed before for large operations such as the CN when establishing a new Crown corporation. However, why should every new Crown corporation need to go through that type of legislative parliamentary scrutiny when most Crown corporations fall under the umbrella of one of the following four Crown corporations; CN, Air Canada, Canada Development Corporation and Petro-Canada?
I hope that Hon. Members are trying to introduce a degree of private-sector accountability into the decision-making processes of Crown corporations. That type of accountability is critical. However, why should an airline not be able to hive off some of its operations into a separate Crown corporation for business reasons only?
In order for us to use a Canada Business Corporations Act type of subsidiary corporation, there are constraints which must be met. First, that subsidiary corporation must fall within the overall mandate of the Crown corporation itself. It cannot go on a new lark and it cannot go from widgets into doughnuts. That is one type of control which we have and we still require that the Crown corporation receive the consent of Parliament. The matter would automatically be referred to a parliamentary committee for 30 sitting days, and then an opportunity would be afforded for at least seven hours of debate in the House before the new corporation is established.
I know what kind of constructive work can be done in 30 sitting days by a parliamentary committee that is dedicated to making things work rather than one which is hell-bent on electoral gains and political advantage. That is one very responsible measure. When we are speaking about seven hours of debate in the House as an additional control on the establishment of Crown corporations, we are speaking of at least two full days' debate. I ask if we really do need to impose that type of shackle on a corporation such as Air Canada, which might want to hive off some of its tourist-generating activities into a subsidiary corporation for accounting and management structure purposes. The private sector has no such constraints; yet we have put these constraints on our own ability to act in this area.
I am prepared to listen to reasonable arguments from the other side and I believe that they would best be heard in
committee. I am prepared to hear why these safeguards are not adequate, particularly when referring to corporations which fall under Part II of Schedule C such as the big ones which compete with the private sector in various areas.
Another area on which the Tory task force recommended clarification was that of the responsibilities of directors and officers. The issue involving the appointment of officers, directors and chairpersons of federal agencies and boards is one which our task force on regulatory reform looked at very candidly and very thoroughly. Three members of the Opposition were members of that task force and we came to the unanimous conclusion that full public scrutiny by subjecting appointments to congressional debates, like those which occur in the United States is not the proper way to go. We felt that there is a better way to go in terms of appointments. We suggested that anyone should be entitled to recommend people who would be competent to fill particular positions. However, we felt that after consultations, it must in the end be the decision of the responsible Minister. This decision would be made after consultations and after soliciting a public list of names. That conclusion received unanimous Opposition approval from members of both the NDP and the Conservative Party.
There are very good reasons why it should be the Government that appoints directors of Crown corporations. The Government is the shareholder. It is the body which is responsible to the Canadian people. It is the trustee for the Canadian people. If we as a Government cannot act to remove the directors who manage and control a Crown corporation, then how can we say that we are responsible? How can the Minister stand up in the House and say that he is responsible? How can Opposition Members pin down anyone on this side of the House with respect to a Crown corporation if we do not have the ability to control those who are responsible for management and control on our behalf? We in turn must act as trustees for the public interest.
Through this Bill, Mr. Speaker, we are striving for control, direction and accountability. I fail to understand how this can be achieved without the Government having the ability to appoint directors and chief executive officers.
Another aspect of this Bill of which I am very proud is the fact that we have control over the remuneration received by those directors and chief executive officers. In my opinion, that is critical because there are times in our public lives when we cannot have increases in wages and salaries being paid to executive officers of particular Crown corporations.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Or bonuses to de Havilland.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but I must inform him that his time has expired. Are there questions or comments?


John William Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) to answer one question. How can the president of a Crown corporation be held accountable? If a board of directors has any role to play in a Crown
May 1, 1984

corporation at all, how can that board hold the president of a Crown corporation accountable if, in effect, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) makes the appointment? Could he answer that simple question for me?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, if what we are trying to do is to invite a comparison between the public sector involved in the control of a Crown corporation and the shareholders of a private corporation, then there is something I would like to say about that. In a private corporation other than a Crown corporation, shareholders or investors are the ones who elect the directors to act on their behalf. In a private corporation such as a Canada business corporation, an Ontario business corporation and, I would venture to say, even an Alberta corporation, there are certain times at which the shareholders are entitled to act and to undertake by resolution certain responsibilities. This is particularly true with a corporation whose shares are not widely held. There are provisions in the law whereby the shareholders, for whom the directors are merely trustees acting on their behalf, can undertake that direct responsibility. To me, entering into the role of being able to appoint a chief executive officer is merely by-passing the role of the directors and going directly to the people for whom those officers are working. That is a power which we have under this particular law.
I fail to see how that differs from a closely held corporation in the private sector. There is no difference whatsoever. As a matter of fact, what it does is to allow the type of accountability which Hon. Members opposite have been talking about. It allows us to act very quickly if the chief executive officer is botching it up. Then we do not have to call a directors' meeting in order to dismiss that individual. There might be times when we would want that to take place.


John William Thomson: That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly the point. The Hon. Member has just confirmed it. What is a board of directors for then? I am quite prepared to admit that there is a vast difference between a multi-shareholder company and a single shareholder company such as we have in a Crown corporation. But, as the Hon. Member has just said, if need be the board will be by-passed. Therein lies the problem. That is exactly what happened in the case of Canadair. The directors served no purpose whatsoever. My point is: Why have them? Why resort to the subterfuge?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the directors can play a very valuable role in a corporation. I do not know whether in the Hon. Member's business life he had a lot of outside directors in his corporation, but if he did he would realize that they performed many more functions other than just choosing the chief executive officer. As a shareholder of a corporation, I am sure that he would have indicated to the directors who he wanted to serve as the chief executive officer. Forget the sham. We are laying it right there. The chief executive officer will be accountable to the people of Canada, the shareholders of the
Financial Administration Act
corporation, through the Minister. That is not a sham; it is calling a spade a spade. It is putting the responsibility there.
The Hon. Member mentioned Canadair. The trouble was that the directors were by-passed. By-passed by whom? Members on this side of the House agree that what happened with Canadair was a disgrace. We did not have the type of instrument in Parliament to supervise adequately what was going on. We as the shareholders did not have the type of business strcuture, such as is proposed in the CDIC Bill, that could give us instant results. It can place before Parliament, very quickly, quarterly results of Crown corporations such as we are proposing so that we as Members acting for the shareholders, the public of Canada, can perform the watch-dog interest that is critical.
I want to ensure, and I think it is shown by the board of the CDIC which is proposed, that we are setting up a good structure which will adhere to sound business principles and which will have a blue chip board of directors-people with proven competence in business areas; people with proven competence in running big businesses in many sectors in Canada. That is why I would like to see the CDIC Bill as a companion Bill to this one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There being no further questions or comments, it is my duty to inform the House at this time that the eight-hour period provided for 20-minute speeches, comments and questions has now expired and the House will now proceed to ten-minute speeches. The Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis).


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, you recognized me 35 minutes ago for a 20-minute speech, and out of courtesy I deferred, and if my colleague from Calgary South (Mr. Thomson) had not asked a question, of course I would have been within the 20-minute time period. So I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will not see the clock for at least ten minutes toward the end of my-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I take the comment of the Hon. Member as an invitation for the Chair to seek unanimous consent for him to make a 20-minute speech at this time. Does the House agree?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Raymond Ellis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues across the way. I do not really mind if there are no questions; that does not bother me at all. I will certainly try to stay well within the 20 minutes.
In dealing with Bill C-24, as my colleagues have done, I intend to be critical of the Bill. It seems to me that this is indeed another example of the state of the Government in that we have had, over the past number of months, indeed over the last few years, a number of Bills brought before us that have been rushed in, have been deficient in make-up and not really

May 1, 1984
Financial Administration Act
ready to be presented to the House. I had hoped to spend a few moments dealing with some statistics, but my colleague from Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), who was very eloquent in that area, did a good job. I intend to get involved only in one statistic that my colleague from Rosedale did not cover, that is a statistic having to do with special enterprises. I quote the following from a recent article in The Financial Post which reads:
Statistics Canada publishes data on what it calls government enterprises- "agencies engaged primarily in operations of a commercial or industrial nature, which either compete actively with similar operations in the private sector or monopolize activities that would otherwise be carried out in the private sector."
In 1981, this description fitted 155 federal agencies and subsidiaries (total assets: $50.9 billion);
These were the agencies which compete with private industry and, in fact, to continue the quotation:
-there are six of these animals among the top 50 non-financial firms ranked by The Post, ranging from Canadian Wheat Board (number nine) to Air Canada (number 35)-
I intend to quote fairly extensively someone who is well known to my colleagues on the other side of the House. I thought I would use an article by Mr. Paul E. Martin, son of a former illustrious Member of this House and now President and Chief Executive Officer of The CSL Group Incorporated, simply because if I were to use entirely original material in speaking to this Bill this afternoon, I am sure I would have a great deal of criticism and comments from my colleagues opposite. It seems to me that if I quote to them from what was said by one of their own people, perhaps it will carry some weight with them.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Was he ever a Member of the House?


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Martin has the qualifications of the Liberal Party at his back and there is no question about that. I will be quoting some excerpts from an article written by Mr. Martin in a publication called Policy Options of March, 1984. While I will not, of course, try to deal with the whole article, nonetheless it will not change the thrust. Let me begin with a very brief quote from Mr. Martin's article. He says this:
Governments are by nature slow in seizing opportunities, facing up to changing conditions, or simply correcting mistakes.
He goes on to say:
Indeed, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that one of the reasons for the unwarranted expansion in the activities of Crown corporations arises from governments' attempt to shortcircuit Parliament in the development of policy.
Is this why, Mr. Speaker, as others have said, and in particular my colleague, the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), that this legislation does not cover 109 Crown corporations mixed with joint enterprises and their subsidiaries? Is this also why we have a dearth of regulations in this particular piece of legislation? My colleagues have all pointed out, Mr. Speaker, and I do not intend to repeat it, the lack of regulations available to us and the continual reference in this piece of legislation to regulations. The fact is that the Bill relies entirely on regulations, and we have no idea what those
regulations will be. This is not the first time we have been faced with that situation in this House, and when we have been faced with that sort of thing, we found to our grief that when the regulations did come out, they did not bear much resemblance to what we felt was the intent of the particular legislation.
I want to deal again briefly with Mr. Martin's article. He goes on to say, and I quote:
It is difficult to envisage a circumstance in which Crown corporations can be as efficient as private sector companies. Not that the latter are models by any means. But, lacking some of the inherent advantages and political constraints of Crowns, private enterprise is forced to be more disciplined, and hence more cost effective.
Do we really believe, Mr. Speaker, that the post office in attempting to get into the retail business is going to be effective? Is it going to pay taxes comparable to other merchants in small communities? Is it going to use tax free trucking to carry the merchandise back and forth? Is it, indeed, going to attempt to hide the inefficiency of the post office by getting itself involved in competition with small businessmen? Obviously, that is an area which all of us must decry.
Let me quote again from Mr. Martin, and I said I was going to quote fairly extensively from the article in order to make my point. He said the following:
And government owned companies possess some very powerful advantages.
First, Crowns operate and invest without fear of bankruptcy in the knowledge that government will not let them go under. This in turn enables their managements to engage in programs in which the cost incurred may well be disproportionate to the benefits gained but which nonetheless result in a major long-term advantage over private sector competitors who are more subject to short-term cash flow fluctuations.
I ask the non-rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker, of my colleagues across the way: How many of you know companies in your constituencies which would be successful if money were available, if it were not a problem; if agencies like the Federal Business Development Bank would provide funds to no end; if there were guarantees from federal agencies; if Revenue Canada were not on their backs trying to put them out of business? If, indeed, that was not a problem, how many companies in your constituencies would in the long run make a profit? I suggest to you, Sir, that in my own constituency I can think of at least a dozen which have had some very serious difficulties, and if they could have had unlimited resources for the first two or three years there is no question but that over the long haul they would have made money. Going back to Mr. Martin again, he said:
-Crown corporations have superior access to government and thus the greater ability to influence government policy that affects them. Indeed, it is not unusual for their personnel to be drawn from the very bureaucracy which has the final policy say over industries in which the private and public sectors compete.
On the Order paper I have a number of questions regarding the Savin Corporation which buys photocopiers from Japan and resells them. It was purchased by the CDC when it was losing money. It is now in the market selling below cost, competing unfairly with other companies which either produce or buy and resell photocopiers. Yet, how many government corporations do we fund today using the Savin photocopiers? I
May 1, 1984

know that my constituency and the surrounding area are flooded with them. I assume the same is true in other constituencies. I doubt that mine would be an exception. I assume the same is true in Ottawa and other areas. Certainly, to have access to the Government is a very real benefit to a Crown corporation. Quoting again from Mr. Martin, he said:
I would suggest that, as the need for Crown corporations to spearhead frontier development declines and the need for commercial discipline becomes paramount, the time has come to consider privatization of mature Crown corporations.
I want to make a point here, Mr. Speaker, that I am now getting into an area which I am personally advocating. The task force, which was very effectively headed by the Hon. Member for Calgary South and the Senator from the other place, has not dealt with this particular question. The excellent report of the task force left out this particular area of privatization. I think it felt that its terms of reference did not go that far. I suggest that I would like to see some privatization of our Crown corporations. I go back to Mr. Martin to make my next point. He said, and I quote:
It is important to emphasize that privatization in no way detracts from the national symbolism of the institutions concerned. They would still be as much Canadian as if owned by the government. The major difference would be that ownership, instead of being concentrated in the hands of a government elite, would be spread out among the Canadian public. In fact, it can be argued that government is so large and so remote that people have difficulty regarding its ownership as their ownership.
There have been some comments made by different speakers, particularly from the New Democratic Party, having to do with the actions of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), when he formed the Government, regarding PetroCan. I believe it is fair to say today, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians by and large recognize finally that PetroCan is much the same as other major oil companies in that it charges as much, is involved in price wars, and is selling service stations. They do not feel the personal relationship, which has been suggested through advertising, with that Crown corporation. That Crown corporation, they now realize, is not making money, is building itself an empire and is generally acting irresponsibly, as many Crown corporations do where there is not sufficient restriction.
I would like to go back to Mr. Martin's article for one last time to help me make my point with regard to privatization. Mr. Martin said, and I quote:
The advantages to be derived by privatization, wherever possible, are powerful.
First, it eliminates the twin problems of Crown corporation lack of accountability and crowding out of the private sector by the simple expedient of joining the private sector and accepting the discipline of the market place.
Second, it would force government to be explicit in its policy directives. Crown corporations are too often used either as a means of developing policy outside of Parliament's scrutiny or as a means of avoiding the making of a policy altogether.
All of this having been said, however, the... most important reason for privatization arises from the opportunity cost of tying up scarce financial resources in well established Crown corporations, once the original public policy objectives have been met. Important new policy initiatives are being forsworn because of a lack of funding. Does it make any sense to tie up billions of dollars
Financial Administration Act
in mature Crowns while turning our backs, to an important degree, on entrepreneurs who would develop new technologies and people who would benefit from new or further training?
I could go on at some length dealing with those other parts of Bill C-24, Mr. Speaker. I could deal with the loopholes that, as my colleague from Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) said, prevent Parliament from dealing with Crown corporations. I could deal with the fact that there will be less information available and continuing problems with the Attorney General. However, the fact is that Bill C-24 is just not adequate.
I will not go into great detail on this, but I would like to mention a problem that I spent hours debating in the House about one and a half or two years ago. A Crown corporation headed by the man who is now the head of VIA Rail was determined to buy equipment from Japan. I questioned the Government, the Minister and the head of the Harbours Board. I pointed out, and was never challenged, that the equipment in question had never before been made by any other company than the one in my constituency. The company in my constituency had bid low, had met the delivery dates, and in fact could do a better job than any other company in the world. Yet this Crown corporation gave a $20 million contract to Japan. Shortly thereafter, in another bid in South America, the Belleville company was successful. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, patently absurd that we would have a Canadian Crown corporation buying offshore, having all the advantages to buy from a Canadian company, while foreign companies on another continent recognize the expertise of the Canadian company.
That is an example, Mr. Speaker, of a need for new thoughts, ideas and approaches. It is a need, Mr. Speaker, for a new Government. If the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) were in the House now, I would say to him through you that the polls suit me just fine. Let us have an election, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have an opportunity to address Bill C-24 in the short amount of time remaining this afternoon. As I am faced with dealing with my remarks within a 10 minute time-table, I would like to zero in specifically on the lack of regulations. By that I mean the fact that the Government has brought in Bill C-24 and has not given the Opposition any opportunity to review the regulations which are going to play such a major part in the actual functioning of Bill C-24. We have not seen them. The Bill gives wide regulations-making power to the Government. We would like to know exactly what the form and content of those regulations will be.
I refer, Mr. Speaker, to Clause 95(10) in which, by regulation, the Government intends to classify major business activity. I refer to Clause 97 which will, by regulation, apply Bill C-24 to subsidiaries. I refer to Clause 101(7) whereby the Government can deal with incorporation and acquisition of subsidiaries by regulation. I refer to Clause 102(2) where, by regulation, subsidiaries and Crown corporations can be exempted from Section 101. I refer to Clause 108(4) where, by regulation, the Government will regulate how agent companies

May 1, 1984
Financial Administration Act
may sell or dispose of property. I refer to Clause 118(3) which defines remuneration. I refer to Clause 124(4) which defines, by regulation, the form and content of the exemption of by-laws from Clause 124. I refer to Clause 130(7) which describes circumstances requiring the approval of corporate plans by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). I refer to Clause 134 wherein the Treasury Board will set the form and content of corporate plans and also set the form, content and timing of operating budgets. I refer to Clause 131(2) wherein Treasury Board may require operating budgets from any C-I corporation. I refer to clause 132(1) wherein Treasury Board may exempt any C-I corporation from requirement to submit a capital budget. I refer to Clause 132(2) wherein C-II corporations may be directed by Treasury Board or the appropriate Minister to submit capital budgets. I refer to Clause 132(4) wherein Treasury Board can approve spending items beyond the budget year. I refer to Clause 132(8) wherein the Minister of Finance may require his approval for a capital budget. I refer to Clause 135(4) wherein the Minister of Finance may exempt a Crown corporation from Clause 135. This clause defines what transactions involve borrowing and specifies the manner of granting approval under Clause 135. I refer to Clause 139(6). This clause troubles me considerably, Mr. Speaker. Therein Treasury Board may prescribe regulations for the preparation of financial statements and supplement or augment generally accepted accounting principles.
Some two years ago, Mr. Speaker, we engaged in a pretty hot and heavy debate in the House. We were able to dissuade the Government from trying to set generally accepted accounting principles by regulation. As a chartered accountant and a fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, I object very strenuously to any government trying, by regulation, to set generally accepted accounting principles. That is for the profession of accounting to do. The Government has no business doing that. It has no business telling doctors how to take out an appendix. It may be in the business of allowing professions to self-regulate, but once again the Government is trying to set generally accepted accounting principles by regulation. As a professional, I object.
By Clause 142(5) the Governor in Council intends to set regulations prescribing how auditors will be selected. By Clause 152(4) the Treasury Board may make regulations on the form and content of annual reports. In these latter three cases, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the regulations go far beyond what the House can approve.
I would respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we call it five o'clock. Within the time limit available to me I have tried to keep my speech specifically on the subject of regulations, and thereby tell why we are specifically objecting to the regulation-making part of the Bill. I ask that I be permitted to continue the next time this Bill is brought up in the House.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to make a minor change to the orders of the day for tomorrow and announce it to Members of the House. Tomorrow, the order of business will be the following: Bill C-7, Bill C-8, Bill C-ll, Bill C-14, Bill C-16, and Bill C-6. I believe there is a minor change there. Bill C-14 has been moved from the last place on the agenda to the fourth position. This is according to an agreement that was reached by the House Leaders earlier this day.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council if in fact that has been communicated to our House Leader?


John Leslie Evans: To my knowledge, that is correct. I want to announce it in the House so that the changes can be made to the orders of the day for tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["Order, please. The Chair regrets to interrupt the Hon. Minister but the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has expired."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Shall all orders and items preceding No. 67 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Before putting the motion to the House, the Chair would like to express some concern with regard to Private Members' notices of motion. It seems that lately, notices of motions contain more and more arguments that normally would form the basis of a speech. The Chair does not intend to interfere with today's projected business, but nevertheless I would like to caution Hon. Members that, as stated in Citation 423 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition:
A motion should be neither argumentative, nor in the style of a speech, nor contain unnecessary provisions or objectionable words.
Members will have noticed that sometimes very thick and complicated legislation is brought to the House by way of a very short motion. This case is not the worst example. Some motions have been introduced in the House with a number of "whereas" or superfluous paragraphs, which has been of some concern to all of the chair occupants. This is brought forward in the House just to warn Members of the situation.
May 1, 1984



Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should call upon the nuclear powers to seek a temporary freeze by all nations on the testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons and delivery systems pending a genuine reduction in nuclear arsenals, and for the early resumption of negotiations on a treaty for comprehensive disarmament under enforceable world law, which should include:
1.	disarmament by all nations to the level of arms required for internal security;
2.	an international inspection organization able to monitor disarmament and detect violations of the agreement, using both satellites and on-site inspection;
3.	a world peace force able to enforce disarmament and prevent international aggression, the members of which should be individually recruited;
4.	an effective system of world courts and arbitration tribunals; and
5.	a world development fund through which a fixed proportion of the resources made available through disarmament will be devoted to development in the poorest nations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the subject of the motion that I put before the House today, seconded by my colleague from Edmonton South (Mr. Roche), is, in essence, human survival. Its substance is a series of concrete proposals to establish an international climate that is co-operative rather than confrontational, that recognizes that international security must rest in a commitment to joint survival rather than in the threat of mutual destruction, and one that ultimately reduces the risk of a nuclear holocaust.
The motion which is before the House in my name today calls for the Canadian Government to press for an immediate freeze by all nations on the testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. This is to be followed by the resumption of negotiations on a treaty for general disarmament under a reliable system of enforceable world law.
This motion underlines the deep concern felt by members within all Parties and which is reflected by the Canadian public in public marches, referendums and many other public illustrations of concern. It is a concern that the deteriorating state of international relations brought about by nuclear weaponry is so great it is a cause not only for alarm but for a call for action that is being heard across the country.
I need not review before the House the horrific statistics that indicate the probability of nuclear war or the absolute destructive power that nuclear weapons possess. Let me simply say that these facts point to one fundamental conclusion: the risk of extinction is not just one more item on the agenda of issues that face us as parliamentarians today. The life and death of every human being on earth and every future human being transcends all other issues that are on our parliamentary schedule and those of other nations. Surely we can agree on this much.
Less than two generations after the carnage of the Second World War, the world is marching toward the brink of a new abyss, toward a conflict whose consequences would exceed experience and defy imagination. It is not enough for us to
Disarmament
remind ourselves that nuclear war is horrible and to assure ourselves that we are not for extinguishing mankind. Immediate steps must be taken to transfer our security reliance from the nuclear weapons system to another universally accepted system.
Kurt Waldheim, a former Secretary General of the United Nations, argued in his 1980 report on nuclear weapons as follows:
-Only a system of international security, based on the observation of the principles of the United Nations Charter and of other universally accepted instruments of international law, can provide a mutually acceptable basis of security. This must be, therefore, the goal on the road to disarmament. The Charter and nuclear weapons date their existence from the same time. The future road should point to a full reliance on the Charter, and the elimination of all nuclear weapons.
The present motion is unique, and in an important sense, historic. It has been introduced in the Congress of the United States of America. Within a few months it will have been introduced into the Parliaments of Australia, India, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, New Zealand, Nigeria, the United Kingdom and the European Parliament.
The initiative has been proposed by Parliamentarians for World Order. It is the first time that legislators around our globe have risen simultaneously and, in unison, introduced concrete proposals for peace. It is my opinion, and that of 800 of my parliamentary colleagues on every continent, that this motion outlines the minimum requirements for humanity's survival.
Some Hon. Members will say that the proposals contained in this motion are unrealistic. They are not. Those who believe that we can carry on for another fifty or a hundred years with a system of nation states, arming themselves with ever more lethal weapons, while the earth is depleted of its resources and millions starve, are only fooling themselves. A realistic look at the requirements for human survival must lead us to seek reform of our international system.
The nuclear powers today possess approximately 50,000 nuclear weapons. These weapons have the destructive power of more than one million Hiroshima bombs. The risk of nuclear war is real. It could be triggered by accident. The Accident Measures Agreement, signed in 1971 by the United States and the Soviet Union, states:
-despite the most elaborate precautions, it is conceivable that technical malfunction or human failure, a misinterpreted incident or unauthorized action, could trigger a nuclear disaster or nuclear war.
On at least three occasions in the last two years, American nuclear forces were placed on alert: twice because of the malfunctioning of a computer chip in the North American Air Defence Command's warning system; and once when a test tape depicting a missile attack was inadvertently inserted in the system.
A nuclear war could begin through the escalation of conventional conflict. There are suggestions today that in the Iran-Iraq conflict it may be as close as two years from now when nuclear weaponry is introduced into that conflict. President

May 1, 1984
Disarmament
Kennedy himself stated that the odds on the Cuban missile crisis leading to a full-scale nuclear exchange were about one out of three or even. Fear that the world would be held by terrorists should the nuclear capacity fall into their hands, cannot be dismissed as irrational, Mr. Speaker. Imagine for a moment if Libya had had this capacity during the past several weeks in that tense situation with Great Britain. While there may be only a small probability of a nuclear war this year, it is a fact that over a sufficiently long period of time the probability of nuclear war must approach statistical certainty. We cannot maintain the atomic arsenals we have indefinitely and survive. Sooner or later, something will go wrong.
While it is impossible to know with certainty that a full-scale nuclear war will end human life on this planet, most experts have concluded that the long-term impact of radioactive fallout and the ecological effects, when added to the short-term effects of blast and fire, will end life as we know it. From inside the political and military system, there are voices of warning in the world today, including that of Ambassador George Kennan, Secretary Robert MacNamara, and Admiral Robert Falls.
Talk of a "limited" or winnable nuclear war is ludicrous. Two questions demand answers. We must ask, at what point will the escalation stop? If generals, diplomats and politicians are not able to prevent a nuclear war from starting, can we expect that they will be able to stop it once it has begun?
The late general, Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma, said shortly before his death:
-the nuclear arms race has no military purpose. Wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons. There can be no victory. Their existence only adds to our perils because of the illusions (of security) that they generate.
The key advantage of the freeze proposal that I have put before the Canadian House of Commons today is its common-sense simplicity. At one stroke, it would cut through the tangle of technical complexity that has frustrated many arms control efforts. Senator Mark Hatfield, Republican co-sponsor of the freeze resolution in the U.S. Congress, stressed this:
-the moratorium concept has the inestimable political virtue of simplicity. Its benefits to mankind are readily apparent to all and sundry rather than only to a handful of scientists and strategic analysts. There would be no mistaking the moral implications of an agreement to stop the arms race. To a world now cowering in the face of the awesome dangers and technological complexities of the arms race, a moratorium would symbolize hope.
A freeze would forestall a dangerous new round of superpower weapons systems, such as the MX missile and a new Soviet intercontinental missile. Given their astonishing accuracy, these weapons will push both sides toward a "launch-on-warning" nuclear response.
A freeze would prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to an increasing number of countries, such as Libya, a country which I just mentioned.
Unlike other arms control measures, a freeze would stop the nuclear arms race and set the stage for disarmament.
It will be said by opponents of the freeze that it is unacceptable because the "other side" is ahead. But we can agree that nuclear weapons are different from other weapons. More
bombs do not necessarily mean more strength. When each side can destroy the other many times over, words like "ahead" and "behind" lose their meaning. Congressman James Leach, a Republican from Iowa, illustrates this point in his intervention in the American forum as follows:
-The problem with the logic of those who would reject a freeze, in favour of unrestrained weapons development until an idealized treaty is negotiated, is that their position hinges on the assumption that more nuclear weapons really matter. Death is death. A human being cannot die twice. If two rivals are locked in a small room in a duel to the death where one has 1,400 pistols and the other 1,200, the one with 1,400 has no advantage when one or both parties are likely to be killed or maimed with the first pistol used-
While a nuclear weapons freeze would set the stage for disarmament, nothing short of comprehensive disarmament will ensure our survival. Only by removing the atomic weapons can we remove the threat of nuclear holocaust. Yet as long as the risk of war remains, the nuclear powers will not give up their arsenals. It will be said that talk of general disarmament is idealistic. We must, however, come to grips with general disarmament under world law, if we wish to be realistic about having a world to pass on to future generations. Nations must give up the right to wage war. That is the minimum necessary for survival.
Shridath Ramphal, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, speaking a few weeks ago to the consultation of National Voluntary Organizations in Ottawa, touched on this theme when he said:
-Nurtured as we are on the doctrine of the nation state, and the concept of national sovereignty which sustains it, we so easily fail to catch a glimpse of the world as a whole.
The sovereignty of all nations in the nuclear age rests in Moscow and Washington. We will only regain our Canadian sovereignty, and other nations will only regain their sovereignty, when the superpowers relinquish the power to annihilate mankind.
To achieve lasting disarmament, four institutions are essential. They are outlined in my motion before the House today. First, an international inspection organization. If nations disarm, they must know that their adversaries are doing likewise. No man will pull down his pants, bend over, and hope someone passing by will resist kicking him. Second, an international police force is necessary. If nations are to reduce the size of their military forces, they must have an alternative on which they can rely for their security. The global police force must be strong enough to enforce two world laws-that no nation may invade another nation and that no nation may rearm. This needs to be enforced.
Third, an improved world judicial system is needed. If nations are to renounce the battlefield as a place to settle disputes, they must have an alternative. Fourth, a world development fund to redirect resources from the arms race to development is needed. To disarm, nations must have security, and there cannot be security in a world where half the population is hungry. This motion recognizes these four insti-
May 1, 1984

tutions as cornerstones of an interdependent global community.
After 30 years, superpower negotiations have reduced neither the quantity of weapons nor their destructive power. The negotiations have provided a stage on which a global audience views its own powerlessness. At present those negotiations, however tenuous, have ceased altogether. Thus we are at a very critical juncture. We must find an alternative approach to the arms race. This is what the marchets in our cities are saying, this is what the municipal-based referendums are saying, this is what the vigils are saying, and this is what the worship services are saying across the country.
President Eisenhower wrote to an American publisher on April 4, 1956 making a crystal-clear point. He said:
When we get to the point, as we one day will, that in any outbreak of general hostilities, regardless of the element of surprise, destruction will be both reciprocal and complete, possibly we will have enough sense to meet at the conference table with the understanding that the era of armaments has ended and the human race must conform its actions to this truth or die.
In concluding my comments in support of my motion before the House today, I invite Hon. Members on all sides to join with me in support of this motion for human survival.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, as chairperson for the Parliamentarians for World Order in Canada, I am pleased to rise and support this proposal. As the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) stated, the substance of this resolution was initiated by the Parliamentarians for World Order internationally.
I would like to make a few brief comments about that organization. It is an international organization of legislators working for disarmament, development and strengthened world institutions. The organization now has over 600 Members of Parliament or legislators in 31 countries. This resolution, which in different words has been called "the call for global survival", has been sent to Members of Parliament around the world, for a total of 25,000 letters to 115 countries in 10 different languages.
It is unfortunate that we must debate such important questions as the freeze on nuclear weapons, and a means to deal with international conflict with so little interest in the House and with so little input from Members. That is partly due to our rules in this Chamber and partly due to our Constitution. However, it is my hope that the debate this afternoon might at least stimulate or encourage the Government to permit a wider debate on these issues which are of such great concern to Canadians. I think we were all struck by the immense numbers of Canadians last weekend who marched in the streets because of their concern about nuclear war; I think there were over
100,000	in Vancouver.
1 know other Hon. Members want to speak, so I will not take much time. However, I want to put on the record some facts with respect to the threat of war today and over the last few years. People have a tendency to forget or to bury their heads in the sand and think that such things will not happen.
Disarmament
Since 1945, since the end of the so-called Second World War, there have been 66 regional wars throughout the world, wherein more than 9 million non-military persons were killed and another 6 million military personnel were killed, for a total of 15 million in 66 wars since 1945.
In 1982, the nations of the world spent more than $650 billion on armaments. That is equal to the total Gross National Product of Latin America and Africa. Of this amount, $100 billion was spent on the production of nuclear arms, which now number 50,000. In contrast to that, the moneys required in the world to provide adequate food, housing, health care and education amount to only $18.5 billion. I say only $18.5 billion when compared with the $650 billion spent on armaments. What a pity, what a shame!
In the United States today, 53 per cent of every tax dollar is spent on military expenditures. That is the greatest percentage in the history of the United States during peacetime. Thirty-five percent of all world armaments are produced in that country, and the 50,000 nuclear weapons which now exist in the world have one million times the destructive power of the explosion at Hiroshima. Imagine that, if you can. The nuclear arms existing in the world today have the capacity to wipe out or destroy 800 million lives in one day. If a nuclear war were to start at the beginning of the day, before the end of that day 800 million lives could be destroyed. Turning to another point, the world now spends 2,300 times more for military activities than for peace activities. I just wanted to put those facts on the record because they are very relevant to the resolution introduced by our colleague today.
Since I want to give other Members a chance to support and talk on this resolution, I will simply say that when we have
50,000	nuclear bombs with a destructive power one million times the Hiroshima bomb which can virtually destroy the world, certainly the only alternative is disarmament and arms control.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that I regretted the fact that we carry on this debate with so little interest in this Parliament. It is too bad we cannot have a process or procedure whereby we could vote on these issues as we did with capital punishment. In that case it was a free vote because we were dealing with life and death issues, something very close to the conscience of Members of Parliament. Here we are dealing with something which could destroy 800 million lives, and we have to deal with it in a process like this. I think that is a very unfortunate set of events. It is too bad that we cannot do what was done in the United States which has so-called non-binding resolutions. The Senate of the United States passed a resolution in favour of a nuclear freeze. It expressed the will of the members of the Senate but it had no binding force on the President. At least the people of the United States knew where their members stood. I wish we could do that in this House. If we cannot do it tonight, let us have an opportunity to do it together and to have a much more lengthy debate with more Members involved. It is vitally important to the people of Canada and of the world.

May 1, 1984
Disarmament


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate this afternoon. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) for introducing the motion today as well as the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. All-mand) who spoke on the pressing problems of nuclear weapons and world conflicts that have occurred since World War II, and the intense building of nuclear arms. I will not repeat much of what has gone on, but I do want to put some of my concerns on the record.
I agree with the importance of this being a broader debate in Parliament. People throughout Canada should become more educated about the real danger of the nuclear holocaust and the events which could lead up to it. It would be devastating for the human race. I plan to circulate as widely as possible the speeches given in the House of Commons by all Members of Parliament who speak today, regardless of their political affiliation. It is a common cause and there is a common bond with regard to the issue we are debating.
I had the honour and the privilege of attending the Seventy-First Interparliamentary Conference in Geneva from April 2 to 7 of this year. We had a delegation in Geneva to discuss some issues that are pertinent to the debate today. Three topics were discussed at the interparliamentary conference: first, a panel on world population; second, an emergency resolution or supplementary item, as it was referred to, on the Iranian-Iraqi war, and, third, a panel on arms control and disarmament. I was proud to be part of the Canadian delegation on the latter panel, namely, that on arms control and disarmament.
The presentation by the Canadian delegation on that panel began by pointing out the peace initiatives of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the broad, if not unanimous acceptance of his peace initiatives by this Parliament and the Canadian people. It is worth putting on the record again today that, out of the findings of the peace initiatives that were started, and that must continue, there were ten principles that represented a common area of interest and agreement between East and West emerging from the wide-ranging discussions that were begun there. It is not only East and West but also the developing and developed countries that hold these concerns. The ten points are as follows: Both sides agree that a nuclear war cannot be won. Both sides agree that a nuclear war must never be fought. Both sides wish to be free of the risk of accidental or surprise attack. Both sides recognize the dangers inherent in destabilizing weapons. Both sides understand the need for improved techniques of crisis management. Both sides are conscious of the awesome consequences of being the first to use force against the other. Both sides have an interest in increasing security while reducing the cost. Both sides have an interest in avoiding the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries. Both sides have come to a guarded recognition of each other's legitimate security interests. Finally, both sides realize that their security strategies cannot be based on the assumed political or economic collapse of the other side. That would just not happen.
Further, the Canadian delegation at the interparliamentary conference in Geneva put forward the priorities officially supported by Canada. First, Canada will press for a comprehensive and multilateral nuclear test ban treaty. On this subject there is preparatory work in progress, and it has been going on for some time, so that Canadian parliamentarians and the Canadian people can contribute their share to what will be a difficult process of deliberations.
Second, Canada will be pressing for a more effective nonproliferation regime. I personally pointed out that although it is not currently part of Canada's official proposals, many parliamentarians and Canadian people are pressing for a policy of nuclear weapons-free zones. I applaud all those countries which forwarded this concept at the interparliamentary conference. There were some 100 countries in attendance at the conference, including all of the countries that presently have a nuclear weapons capability or have nuclear weapons within their arsenals.
Third, Canada will press for a convention to prohibit chemical weapons. Until such time as a convention can be put in place, we call upon countries of the world to confirm or re-confirm their adherence to the protocol agreement of 1925 banning the use of chemical weapons. This has come to the fore because of the situation arising from the Iranian-Iraqi war.
Fourth, officially Canada will press toward the objective of prohibiting all weapons from use in outer space. Certainly the development of weapons for use in outer space only further endangers the tinder box in which we now live. I believe we must maintain this last frontier for peaceful and mutually beneficial purposes.
In addition, on the official position of Canada we strongly put forward that we would support negotiations to limit and reduce nuclear arms. We would participate actively in negotiations to limit and reduce conventional forces. Further, we would seek step by step to achieve ultimately general and complete disarmament consistent with the legitimate security needs of states. This ties in very well with what the Hon. Member for Waterloo said about the need for an international police force to protect states that still fear aggression from other countries.
We all realize that the major stumbling blocks to arms control and disarmament agreements are the methods of monitoring or verification and the trust of others throughout the world. We must not let the problems that lie there be excuses for not being able to overcome those hurdles. Whether we consider ourselves East or West, developed or developing countries, we must look forward to the day with optimism when we will not have to explain to our children the atrocities of war or why weapons of mass destruction exist on the face of the earth.
May 1, 1984

We should always remember that not one of us owns any piece of this planet. Although we may have a deed to a piece of property, ultimately none of us own the planet. We have inherited this planet from past generations. We will let down future generations unless we find a way to pass it on, hopefully in a better state than when we found it. By allowing the escalation and threat of nuclear weapons to increase along with other weapons of mass destruction, we are not honouring that obligation to future generations.
I now want to turn to the resolution that was adopted at the Seventy-First Interparliamentary Conference in Geneva. The panel which dealt with the arms race, arms control and world disarmament passed this resolution unanimously. As I have already pointed out, all countries in the world which are governed by some form of Parliament, whether or not we in the free world agree with that form of Parliament, are represented at the inter-parliamentary union. This resolution was adopted unanimously.
I believe that the resolution covered the four points which were mentioned by the Hon. Member for Waterloo. I would like to look at a few of the highlights of that resolution today. Point No. 10 of the draft resolution reads as follows:
Calls upon Parliaments and Governments, especially those of the most heavily armed countries, to exert efforts for reducing the enormous expenditure entailed in accumulating arms for military purposes, as well as to channel the human and material potentials released by the reduction of military expenditure towards economic and social development, particularly for the benefit of the developing countries;
Point No. 12 of the resolution reads as follows:
Calls upon Parliaments and Governments to support the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones in various parts of the world-particularly in areas of tension-wherever all the States of the region show interest and give their agreement;
I find this point to be of particular interest since I have put forward two private Member's Bills in an attempt to declare Canada a nuclear-weapons-free zone. In the last Parliament, I put forward Bill C-678, and in the first session of this Parliament, the session we are now in, I put forward Bill C-203. I must say that that Bill has received some support, just as the motion today is receiving some support from all sides of the House of Commons. I was gratified to find that this section of the motion was adopted by all member countries of the inter-parliamentary union.
Point 13(a) of the resolution to which I have referred reads as follows:
To initiate parliamentary debates on disarmament problems, to launch appeals and issue statements in favour of the cessation of the arms build-up, to adopt measures freezing and reducing-military expenditure, to support the prohibition of foreign bases and troops on the territory of other States and the disbanding of military blocs;
Point No. 13(b) reads as follows:
To intensify parliamentary contacts on the regional and sub-regional levels on such problems as the strengthening of confidence and security, the creation of areas of co-operation, understanding and neighbourliness, without nuclear weapons;
Disarmament
I believe that the Members who have risen in the House today and the Members who will rise after me have no problem agreeing with that point. I encourage the parliamentarians who are here today and the Canadian people who have followed and will be following this debate to educate our friends and neighbours to promote international peace and arms control and certainly to promote the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons so that all of mankind can live in a better world.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, because other members wish to speak in this debate, I will keep my remarks quite brief. However, I wish to note that this debate has two distinguishing characteristics. First, there is representation in support of the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) from all sides of the House. This is a non-partisan debate and indeed it is a high level debate. I believe that the issues which have been put forward have been approached from a level of deep political concern in a way that lifts us above partisan debate.
The second characteristic of this debate is the unique nature of the motion before us which is being introduced internationally in many Parliaments throughout the world. Just as we here in Canada are speaking in this hour that is available to us, so too there are parliamentarians in other nations who are addressing in their own Chambers the very same questions. To me, this represents a very significant gain in the international understanding of our common concerns and the understanding of the common ground on which we all stand as we seek collective security with economic development for all, the only sane course of action for a world which has become not only international but truly interdependent. We do live in a global community and it is those of us who are specifically charged as elected politicians in national legislatures who must rise above the domestic concerns which are always real and pressing and put into place a system that will ensure true security with economic development in the world.
I wish to take a moment to note that one of the leaders of the United Nations, Mr. Brad Morse, the administrator of the United Nations Development Program, spoke at one of the first forums that was held at the United Nations by Parliamentarians for World Order, the organization which has sponsored the very motion we are debating. Mr. Morse was a distinguished Republican Congressman in the United States Congress before moving on to his post at the United Nations. I would like to read the words of Mr. Morse to indicate to my colleagues what today's debate is all about. Mr. Morse said:
We have to make a great and noble leap in our thinking about profound issues of public policy, from parish to planet; from nation to United Nations; from abject poverty for most of our human family to progress in equity and well-being for all; from the tragic absurdity of armaments to the sanity of peace that can ennoble and enrich all of us.
The most recent forum held by Parliamentarians for World Order at the United Nations last November was a forum which was conducted under the title "Global Militarization versus Economic Development". It was a forum which tried to relate these two principal concerns in life today, development

May 1, 1984
Disarmament
and disarmament. It was a forum which tried to show that the two characteristics of our world today are militarization and deprivation and one which tried to show that the East-West conflict has North-South dimensions as well. These are the global concerns that this organization has tried to put forward.
At that forum, the keynote speaker was the distinguished Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Mr. Shridath Ram-phal, a man who is well known in our country. To be frank about it, Sir, he gave the forum a rather gloomy prognosis of the state of the world today. I would like to read to the House a few of the words with which Mr. Ramphal left us, because they are words worth pondering. He said:
We are losing the ethic of peaceful settlement. Resort to force is becoming less disreputable. In fact, the gravest contradiction of all may arise if democracy begins to stand in the way of internationalism as the notion takes root that there are votes in war. We allow the machinery of peacemaking to rust away. It it any wonder that militarism is ascendant?
That, unfortunately, is a characteristic of the world in which we live today. My colleagues have already pointed out the enormous amounts of money that are being spent on the arms race literally at the cost of the poor of the world.
Mr. Ramphal went on to make another point, and I would like to conclude my remarks on this note. He said:
Whatever the lunacies of the rich, why do poor countries persist in adding to their military budgets? ... In an international climate dominated by militarism, some Third World leaders have sadly allowed themselves to regard modern weapons systems almost as symbols of progress or as necessary props for political power... What is needed is a new global ethos that rejects the military culture.
That indeed is the challenge that we as parliamentarians face when trying to grapple with larger responsibilities.
I would like to conclude by saying that last week I visited Peru. To see an example of what a combination of militarism and deprivation does to a people, one would only have to look at the people of that country. In that country, 45 per cent of the budget is spent on military armaments, the army and all the accoutrements that go with modern warfare. All of that is at the expense of the greatest deprivation that I have seen in my many years of travelling through Third World countries. It was brought home to me very forcefully.
In the nuclear arms race the major nations of the world- the five permanent member nations of the Security Council which have weapons and, in particular, the two superpowers that have 95 per cent of all the nuclear weapons in the world- are continuing to build a vertical mountain of nuclear weaponry, while other nations of the world are extending a horizontal network of conventional arms in ways that are horrendous to contemplate in terms of their economies and also are manifesting a militaristic culture. I believe we have to consider seriously how to get rid of it.
Even if the world could eliminate all nuclear weapons, which it seems is a political impossibility, the world from then on would have to live with the knowledge of how to construct nuclear weapons. I put this question to the distinguished Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) and I ask him to consider it. I put this question to him very seriously and I know
he may have an opportunity to respond tonight. How is it possible, as a new political challenge, to make knowledge-as distinct from actual possession-the actual deterrence? This course of action has been labelled by Jonathan Schell among others as "existential deterrence". This would entail the abolition of nuclear arms in progressive steps, starting with a reciprocal no-first-use pledge.
The threat of deterrence would ultimately consist of the ability of one side to construct nuclear devices once it was known that the other side was doing so. The critical time factor of split-second death would be removed. On the basis of my experience as a politician, I recognize that the chances of moving into such a mode are quite remote without a tremendous political push forward. I believe that Canada has a real role to play in making a contribution to the verification systems in the world that need to be developed both in conventional arms, as we are doing in the contributions that the Canadian Government has made so far to the Stockholm Conference, and in the verification techniques that still have to be developed for outer space weapons in order to stop that escalation of nuclear technology beyond the point where it is today.
I make a very fervent appeal to my colleagues in this House to take very seriously the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Waterloo, because it has opened up the very high level, non-partisan way in which we are speaking on behalf of humanity. Indeed, we are speaking about the survival of my children as well as the children of every Member of this House of Commons and their grandchildren. That is our responsibility. I believe that Parliamentarians for World Order have helped to lift up our thinking, and now as politicians we will have to follow it through.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I support this motion very strongly, but I support it as a second step rather than a first step. I would like to give an idea of where I think we should go first. This, I think, is tremendously important. I think many Hon. Members have seen the cartoon about the two men knee-deep in gasoline. One of them has seven matches and the other has ten matches. The matches represent nuclear weapons. Both of them are arguing about who has more matches and whether one has bigger matches than the other. It seems to me that the argument of how many nuclear weapons we have in this particular proposal is part of the solution to that argument. I have become convinced that we are working from the wrong place to start with. Maybe we should be draining the gasoline from the tanks, because we are not getting anywhere by just making these proposals.
I was very pleased when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke on February 9 as a result of long discussions he had with leaders of many, many countries around the world, including the major NATO countries, the Warsaw Pact countries, the five nuclear powers, and, in particular, the two superpowers. He came to a series of conclusions. I think that these conclusions may be the very basis for the beginning of the kind of negotiations that would bring us to a freeze. I would like to mention these quickly. The Prime Minister said that there is
May 1, 1984

among all of these nations, including the superpowers: agreement that a nuclear war cannot be won; agreement that a nuclear war must never be fought; a wish to be free of accidental war or of surprise attack; recognition of the dangers of destabilizing weapons; the need for improved techniques of crisis management; recognition of the consequences of the first use of force; an interest in increasing security and reducing costs; prevention of horizontal proliferation; recognition of each other's legitimate security interests; and, finally, recognition that their security cannot be based on the political or economic collapse of the other side.
It seems to me that if we start with this-and I met with a group in the United States just recently who were talking about a common ground-it would provide the common ground. I hope the Prime Minister, when he leaves here, will carry on with the idea that these particular points could be a basis for a group of countries which would be involved in some kind of third party action to bring the two superpowers and the other nuclear powers to recognize that we must come to the point of freeze. I believe the gasoline must be drained from the tank before there can be agreement on a freeze.
Admiral Eugene Carroll said the other night that he felt a nuclear war was probable by about 1992. We must move to do the two things I am suggesting.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I believe in many of the objectives that have been set out in this motion, but I do not believe in world government and I do not believe in an enforceable police force that will force nations to do things that they do not want to do. I believe in seeking a just peace, but I do not want a world government that is going to come in and tell people what to do and use armed forces to do it-an enforceable police force. It smacks too much of world government. I believe in the sovereignty of people, and people should have the right to decide their own destiny.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder, as the hour is drawing near, whether the House would agree that the question be put.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am rising-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: First of all, if I may, speaking to the point raised by the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean), let me say that the previous question can be put on a point of order.
[Translation\


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to commend the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) for moving this motion. In view of his proposal, it is clear that differences of opinion exist within the Progressive Conservative Party.
We have heard the views put forward by the previous speaker, which in fact reflect a lot better the position of the Progressive Conservative Party.
Adjournment Debate

I want to commend the Hon. Member for Waterloo because he has presented a wide-ranging resolution that is provoking a great deal of interest and will provoke a great deal of debate. I would ask him to recognize that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and indeed the Government, have been very active in attempting to promote greater dialogue and greater discussion between the two superpowers to reduce the level of international tension and provide an environment within which better discussions could take place. I would invite the Hon. Member for Waterloo to use his substantial influence within his caucus to encourage the Tory Party to support the initiatives-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair regrets to interrupt the Hon. Minister but the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, the questions I have asked in the House, and on the Order Paper, regarding the purchase of special vehicles to protect diplomats and our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), are really designed to bring to the attention of the Government some rather startling deficiencies and, may I say, inefficiencies.
For example, what is the role of Mr. John Morgan, reportedly retired from the American secret service? Who recommended him as an expert in this area for our purposes in Canada? There is also the bidding process itself, and interdepartmental squabbling and reported paranoia between the RCMP, the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Supply and Services, and officious people involved in these Departments such as Superintendent Muir of the RCMP, Mr. Steve MacEachern from the Department of Supply and Services, and Mr. Barry Weaymouth from the Department of External Affairs who recently went off on another trip to Miami.
I am, of course, concerned to see that the mechanical deficiencies with the summit seven cars are remedied, particularly the problems with the glass. I would like to know if Hesse Eisenhardt, who supplied these cars will again be able to escape any guarantee provisions. What were the results of the

May 1, 1984
Adjournment Debate
legal opinions with respect to the glass deficiencies in these cars? Was there any reason why the Canadian Government decided not to sue the company for these deficiencies? Taxpayers are entitled to know these things even if some egos in various departments are bruised.
What is the process which allows the Department of External Affairs to take the risk with our diplomats in the field? Also, I wonder if the Minister will produce the external affairs report of the internal audit of emergency buys for bulletproof vehicles?
With regard to the Prime Minister's new limousine, which he does not like because the windows do not open, I assume Mr. Morgan had some role in purchasing this car. Is the price we paid for the Prime Minister's vehicule the same, allowing for currency differences, as that paid for a similar vehicle for the President of the U.S.? What role did Superintendent Muir and Sergeant Banks of the RCMP play in this matter? Were specifications drafted by Sergeant Banks, changed by Superintendent Muir, and, if so, was there any good reason for it?
With respect to the vehicles known as "Popemobiles" which are being purchased-I understand there are three Oldsmo-biles-John Morgan, apparently is involved, but where does this leave Sergeant Banks who was offered to the Department of External Affairs as an expert? Also, why is John Morgan signing his name as an RCMP member, as he did on February 22 when he entered the protective materials plant in Miami? Also, was this contract a predetermined contract, as with respect to the Prime Minister's limousine, but with all the fanfare of a legitimate bid?
I am very skeptical that the taxpayers of Canada are getting value for their money. I am skeptical about the legitimacy of the bidding process and I am very suspicious of what I consider to be the incompetence and the in-fighting I detected in the Departments concerned.
I would also like to know if there is an approximate $30,000 differential per vehicle in some instances between the Hesse Eisenhardt bid and that of another supplier, and, if so, how do you explain this attitude towards the bidding process? Why do so many vehicles appear to be predestined to be bought from the Hesse Eisenhardt Company, particularly when there are reports that this company may be the subject of yet another change in ownership?
I will have other questions, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have some sign that the Government recognizes that there is a problem, that it is prepared to be honest in assessing the causes, and is taking the actions required to remedy the situation.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question put by the Member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) on April 12 of this year. Following an exhaustive study of possible sources of supply, a contract for a 1983
model Cadillac Fleetwood limousine was given to Hesse Eisenhardt in August 1983.
Both Canadian and American companies appeared on the list of prospective suppliers of the Department of Supply and Services. However, none of the domestic companies was able to supply a vehicle with the type of armour-plating desired. The RCMP then consulted the U.S. Secret Service, which replied that the only American company capable of supplying an armoured vehicle meeting the security standards for the President of the United States was Hesse Eisenhardt. Consequently, the RCMP asked the Department of Supply and Services to negotiate a contract with Hesse Eisenhardt, for supplying the limousine.
As far as the Summit meeting is concerned, it is correct that seven cars, made by Chevrolet and provided with armour-plating by Hesse Eisenhardt, were purchased for that occasion. As far as I know, there was never any mention of deficiencies in the armour-plating of these vehicles. However, there may have been complaints about certain mechanical deficiencies. In fact, no manufacturing defects could be found in any of the armoured vehicles acquired on behalf of the Department of External Affairs. I must point out, however, that further questions on the subject would have to be answered by the Department of External Affairs rather than the Department of Supply and Services.
As for the purchase of vehicles required for the Pope's visit in September 1984, to which the Hon. Member for Pembina seemed to be referring, the RCMP has recommended calling for tenders. Furthermore, a number of companies have asked the Department of Supply and Services to let them bid on the contract. It was therefore decided to assess the capabilities of prospective suppliers by sending each one a call for tender. Eleven companies, both Canadian and American, received an invitation to bid, and each company's capabilities have been thoroughly examined. The overriding criterion for selecting a supplier was the availability of the type of steel required for armour-plating. Although Protective Materials International Inc. of Miami Lakes, Florida, made a lower bid, it was felt that since the company did not have the required steel in stock, it would not be able to get it from the manufacturer in time for the delivery deadline.
In view of the urgent nature of the order, it was decided to give the contract to Hesse Eisenhardt. In fact, this company was the only one to have enough of the right kind of steel in stock and the expertise required to do the armour-plating within the established time frame. Consequently, a contract for Can. $358,725 was given Hess and Eisenhardt on March 6, 1984.
May 1, 1984


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT-LINGAN-PHELEN COAL MINE PROJECT IN NOVA SCOTIA. (B) LACK OF EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, on April 11, 1984 I raised a question in the House with the Minister responsible for regional and industrial expansion (Mr. Lumley). The question arose from the tragic fire at Devco's No. 26 colliery in Cape Breton.
As the Minister knows, 1,400 people are out of work because of the fire. The Leader of the New Democratic Party in Nova Scotia sent a telegram to the Minister calling on the Government to speed up development of the coal mine, a move which would provide jobs and spare these people severe economic hardship. I am advised that to this date nothing has changed in that regard. The situation is the same as it was two and one-half weeks ago. They need assistance to get another mine going. There are 1,400 miners out of work. The unemployment rate is 30 per cent to 40 per cent. There was a wire sent which reads as follows:
Due to the serious fire and sealing off of No. 26 colliery Glace Bay and loss of over twelve hundred jobs District 26 United Mine Workers of America executive and membership request you press for the immediate opening of Lingan-Phelen mine and three new mines from one slope at former Number 20 colliery Glace Bay to alleviate any further unemployment in this area.
In his answer to me the Minister indicated that:
My officials have been working since Friday with the Devco officials to bring this information to my attention. It is hoped that we can make a decision with respect to the new mine as soon as possible.
That is not good enough. The problem is that there are contracts of sale involved here. We know that the American government is aggressively moving toward an attempt to get contracts with Korean and Japanese markets. Unless there are very serious moves made soon we would lose these markets and these jobs could be gone forever.
Also, with regard to a wire we received concerning a telegram which was addressed to the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts), I would hope that the Parliamentary Secretary would relay this message to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It states:
The United Mine Workers of America District Executive Board is requesting Minister of Employment and Immigration for the immediate lifting of the waiting period for men from the 26th colliery who because of the disaster of the fire will have to wait additional time to qualify for UIC.
Again, because of the inaction of the Government, these workers are unable to collect their unemployment benefits. In our opinion, they are unnecessarily being laid off. There are programs put forward for the opening up of other areas or slopes. They have now sealed off the fire but the situation is exactly the same. These workers need help and they need it now.
[ Translation]


Mr. Rene Cousineau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
Adjournment Debate
the concern of the Hon. Member and I commend him for the interest he demonstrated last April 11 when he directed his question to the Minister.
Mr. Speaker, the one thing we have to keep in mind concerning the fire in shaft or slope No. 26 is that everything has been sealed off to prevent oxygen from getting into the mine.
As a result it is impossible of course to assess the damages to facilities and machinery and to make a study to establish whether it would be profitable to re-open the mine.
In his question, the Hon. Member suggested that we ought to speed up development of a mine called Lingan-Phalen. Again I commend him, but that would not be the answer because what matters is finding a long-term solution. I do not think that if we were to speed up development of the Lingan-Phalen mine, we would actually be able to rehire immediately the 1,400 people who, unfortunately, are now unemployed.
One thing for sure is that, since the fire, the Minister has been making every effort. He has asked for a report and urged his officials to give a fully satisfactory answer to the Hon. Member in the best interests of those miners.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that no effort has been spared and I am convinced that the best interests of the miners will be taken into consideration.


LABOUR CONDITIONS-UNEMPLOYMENT IN ATLANTIC CANADA-REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S ADVICE. (B) PLIGHT OF JOBLESS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, on April 12 I raised the matter of the desperate situation in which the Atlantic provinces find themselves, and have found themselves over the past number of months with respect to the unemployment that exists there. I specifically referred to the construction trades in and around the Saint John region, Moncton, Bathurst and Campbellton. Quite frankly, we find it intolerable.
I mentioned in the House before that the norm in the construction trades seems to be in the vicinity of 75 per cent to 83 per cent unemployment, which basically covers the entire construction trade segment. The frustration of these people is that there does not seem to be any sort of a response from the Government to the plight in which they find themselves.
For instance, in the Saint John region a new hotel complex recently opened up with a mere handful of jobs in relation to the number of unemployed in that region. For somewhere in the vicinity of say 150 to 200 jobs there was a lineup of over 1,500 people who were making job applications. Some people stood literally all night in that line-up so they would be the first to be considered for a job. The management of the hotel complex had to bring in a team of people to process the applicants who were lined up for those jobs.

May 1, 1984
Adjournment Debate
In the shipyard in Saint John we find a union with approximately 1,100 to 1,200 members, with nine people as of yesterday working in that yard. Imagine nine people out of a complement of 1,100 to 1,200 workers in one of the most modern shipyards in the country, probably in North America. This Government has spent a lot of money developing that yard, but it has not done a single thing to pump any sort of meaningful work into that yard that would create jobs for more than a handful of people. That is the frustration, Mr. Speaker.
We now find that the City of Moncton has the highest unemployment of any city across this nation. That is totally unacceptable. The City of Moncton is supposed to be the hub of the Maritimes. It is supposed to be the rail centre for the CNR with its repair depots. But what do we hear, Sir? We have heard consistently over the last number of months, and the past couple of years, of lay-off after lay-off after lay-off in a Crown corporation that is directly controlled by this Government. This Government should be addressing itself to finding meaningful ways to increasing employment in that Crown corporation in Moncton which so desperately needs jobs instead of lay-offs.
We have been attempting for months and months to encourage this Government to increase grain shipments through the Port of Saint John. We are not asking for many, but one or two additional shipments during the season would make a tremendous difference to the amount of work created in that port. The Port of Saint John is one of the finest facilities in North America. It is one of those rare ports with the capacity, the capability and the work force to handle most any circumstance of shipping that we could possibly conceive of or require. This Government cannot come to grips or cope with the desperate situation that exists in the Port of Saint John, even by increasing the number of grain shipments by an additional one or two, which is all we were asking.
Speaking of the Port of Saint John, we could easily consider in a meaningful way the creation of a free trade zone. It has an ideal geographical location. The Maritime region of New Brunswick is next to the great market of New England with its 48 million people, practically twice the population of Canada. Imagine the benefit to the Maritime region, to the Port of Saint John and to that entire area if the Port of Saint John were declared a free trade zone. What about the literally billions of dollars in additional revenues that could be generated over a short period of time, creating jobs in a region that is starved economically for the maintenance of its current job level?
There are many things to which this Government could address itself to alleviate the difficulties which the Atlantic and Maritime region is facing. Instead, this Government seems to be contented with the attitude of, "send down a few paltry dollars from time to time through a new Government job creation program which will dry up in a few months, only to keep the soup kitchens rolling. It is difficult for most people in the country to realize that soup kitchens are on the increase.
Not since the great depression have we seen anything like we are currently experiencing. It is a sad fact of life, but, due to the apathy of government, the number of soup lines is on the increase.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, I should first point out that, according to the latest unemployment data as compiled by economic region and published by Statistics Canada-they are for the week ending March 17-it is not in Moncton that the unemployment rate is the highest. With 18.6 per cent unemployment, this city ranks twelfth.
While unemployment is admittedly a serious problem in New Brunswick and indeed elsewhere, it is heartening to note that unemployment in that province did fall from 15 per cent in December 1983 to 14.7 per cent in March 1984. For Canada as a whole, during the same period, unemployment has increased by .3 per cent. All the signs show that the economy of New Brunswick, which is getting close to the pre-recession level, should continue to improve this year. According to the Conference Board reports, the mining, manufacturing and construction sectors should also show substantial growth. In fact, the housing construction, pulp and paper, lumber production and retail industries already show a marked increase compared with last year's performance. Opportunities are therefore improving for New Brunswick workers.
The Minister has already mentioned the frigate program. The $3.9 million contract granted to the Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. Ltd. will certainly prove to be beneficial to the economy of the Saint John area. Included in the construction projects are the Maritime Forestry Complex in Fredericton at a cost of $45 million, the restoration plans for downtown Moncton at a cost of $41 million and the development of the Sussex potash mines.
Unemployment and conditions prevailing in the building sector and the various industries of Atlantic Canada are matters of ongoing concern to us. However, in view of the improvement in the economic picture and the new projects now underway such as the frigate program, the Government is convinced that still more jobs will be created.
I therefore urge the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) to promote the projects and programs developed by the Canadian Government; I am sure he is pleased with them and will be glad to tell all and sundry that Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. Ltd. in New Brunswick have been awarded a $3.9 million contract and that the $42 million Fredericton Maritime Forestry Complex and the $41 million improvement program in downtown Moncton are the workings of the Liberal Government led by Mr. Trudeau. These programs are aimed at improving the situation in Atlantic Canada and more especially in New Brunswick. All the work
May 1, 1984

done under the job creation programs such as the temporary job creation programs slashed by the Conservative Government in 1979 and brought back by the Liberal Government will result in an improved situation in New Brunswick.
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.23 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, May 2, 1984