1984-06-28

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: that Bill C-32, an Act to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a third time?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: By consent, now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the final step in the creation of the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. This legislation is an expression of the hopes and dreams of all Members and all Canadians who want nothing less than a peaceful and secure world. The creation of the Institute, first proposed in the Throne Speech last December, is important to all Canadians because it is Canada's way of injecting fresh ideas and developing new and better solutions for a world troubled by conflict and uncertainty.
I think it is quite appropriate that Canada should be taking this initiative. Throughout our history we have consistently striven to realize a better and more peaceful planet, especially since the last World War, the beginning of the end of which we recently marked in the fortieth anniversary commemorating Normandy. Successive Canadian Governments, with the active backing of all Parties, have sought to save succeeding generations from the scourges of war which, twice in this century, has brought untold suffering to mankind.
Canada's adherence to the United Nations Charter, and its active membership in multilateral organizations like the Commonwealth and the Francophonie have had one basic goal in mind-to build a better, more secure and peaceful world. As peacekeepers, as participants in the North-South dialogue, as members of the western alliance, and as a bridge between East and West, Canadians have certainly attained and deserved a reputation on the world stage. I believe that we are continuing that tradition with the action which I hope will be taken today by Parliament in the House of Commons.
The Institute for International Peace and Security is the legacy of Canada's latest peace initiative, an initiative which all parliamentarians have supported and earnestly encouraged. In recent months we in Canada have made a special effort through the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his associates to make a contribution to the search for peace, and particularly to bring about an improved atmosphere in a deteriorated East-West relationship. As I said, that effort has been encouraged by Canadians. It has been supported by all Members of the House, and I believe the effort that Canada has made, led by the Prime Minister, has been outstanding, has drawn attention to very important issues, and has had an effect in lessening the tensions which still exist in a serious way between the East and the West.
Our proposals for the resolution of international conflict have been based on sound and considered principles, because that is the way of Canada. These principles are borne out in the clause defining the purpose of the Institute. That purpose is to look outward, to promote scholarship, to encourage public discussion, and to collect and spread information and ideas on international peace and security.
The public interest in this Bill has been great, and its influence profound. By letter, by appearance before the committee, and in discussion with Members, Canadians have spoken out about what they wanted in this Institute.
There have been few other pieces of legislation about which consultation between the Government and the opposition Parties has been so close and so co-operative. Throughout these past weeks the Prime Minister has had correspondence with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and with the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), and I myself met frequently with representatives of the opposition Parties, and particularly with the Deputy Leader of the Official Opposition and the foreign affairs critic for the New Democratic Party. I have also had discussions with the Leader of the New Democratic Party. At times, we have been stalled in our efforts, and the road which we have followed has taken us around some rough corners. I believe that I can say that,

June 28, 1984
International Peace and Security throughout this endeavour, we have shared one single goal and that is to create a world-class institute of which Canadians can be proud.
1 must say that while the Leaders or representatives of the Parties were conducting their discussions, the members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence were giving the Bill their very careful consideration. Meeting morning, noon and night, over a period of weeks, this committee heard from members of the dozens of groups from across the country to whom this Institute means so much. The work of the committee cannot be under-emphasized. Despite difficulties they persevered. Positive progress was made, and a better Bill was born. I pay tribute to the industry of all the members of the standing committee. I pay particular tribute to the chairman of the standing committee who provided the required leadership. I believe that those who are inclined to deprecate the value of our committee system can point to the labours of this particular committee as an example which should moderate their views.
Through all-Party consultations we have agreed to a board of directors, and a method by which that board will select its chairman and executive director. However, that cannot be done until the Bill has received proclamation. I believe it would be appropriate to identify the persons who will be approached by the Minister to serve as representatives on the board. The list of directors which we are proposing and who, it is hoped, will serve as directors when asked, is as follows:
Norman Alcock, President, World Federalist of Canada;
William Barton, former Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations;
George Bell, Director, Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies, former General, Canadian Armed Forces;
Christoph Bertram, Editor of Die Zeit, former Director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London;
Harriet Critchley, Director, the Arctic Institute of North America, University of Calgary;
Paul Desmarais, Chairman of Power Corporation;
Gwynne Dyer, International affairs journalist and military historian;
William Epstein, former Director of the UN Disarmament Division;
Margaret Fulton, President of Mount St. Vincent University, Halifax;
Albert Legault, Professor of Political Science, Laval University;
Joanna Miller, Project Ploughshares, Saskatchewan, former President UNICEF Canada;
Denis McDermott, President, Canadian Labour Congress;
John Sigler, Professor of Political Science, Carleton University;
Ian Smart, former Director of Studies, Royal Institute of International Affairs, London;
Paul Warnke, former Director, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; Lois Wilson, former Moderator of the United Church of Canada;
Gerald Wright, Vice-President, Canadian Donner Foundation.
I believe that is a very impressive list of proposed directors. The list represents a balance. The list has been agreed to by all Parties, but it also contains names which were suggested by organizations which were asked to make suggestions. I should add that we have agreed that the first chairman and the first executive director will be chosen by the members of the board, as indicated in the legislation. That would give the board an opportunity to choose the chairman and the executive director from among their own membership.
I should add that it is my intention, and the intention of others who participated in the discussions, that the 14 Canadian board members will be chosen first. That initial group of 14 Canadians will meet to choose the chairman and executive director, as provided for in the Bill. Of course, when the executive director and the chairman have been chosen, the three non-Canadians on the list will then be approached to serve. Of course it is understood that if any on the list refuses to serve, the consultation process provided for in the Bill will come into operation.
I want to add a further point, to ensure that we are quite serious about carrying out these undertakings or understandings, that I have consulted with the new Leader of the Liberal Party who will be sworn in as Prime Minister on Saturday of this week, and he has assured me that he will carry out the undertakings, or the understandings, which I have just listed. That should be of greater interest to Hon. Members of the House.
I would like to make a few additional comments, Mr. Speaker, about the Institute. We have, by legislation, established a role for the parliamentary committee to which the annual report will be referred. In so doing we have really broken new ground. By virtue of Section 32 the committee will also have the ability, in accordance with the rules of the House, to request the Institute to undertake research for, or provide advice to, the committee.
There was a provision in the Bill which made it possible for the Minister to ask for advice and to ask the Institute to conduct research. I personally placed a good deal of store on that provision because I wanted the Institute to be independent, but I also wanted it to be able to give advice, when required, to a Minister or the Government on very important questions. In that way it could be tied in more closely to the current preoccupations of any Government. The Minister is not running the Institute but he is permitted to ask for advice and policy guidance.
That same opportunity is provided to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. There is, I believe, a simple way by which that can be done, and the Deputy Leader of the Official Opposition was quite active in discussing with me the particular amendment which might carry that out. That is an important point in the Bill.
By including in the Act as well a schedule of organizations, we have firmly entrenched the role of Canadian groups and established their role in the selection of future boards of directors. The schedule contains a quite lengthy list of organizations, I understand 89 in number. Not all organizations have been included, but there is a provision that additions or deletions can be made in the future. It may be that with experience and reflection it will be found that some organizations can be removed from that schedule. Perhaps some will go out of existence and ought to be removed. Others may appear with a greater relevance to the work of the Institute. That flexibility is provided.
June 28, 1984

[DOT]	0125)
There was a great deal of concern that the Institute be non-partisan and independent. It certainly was never my view that it should be anything but non-partisan, and independent, and objective. It has been given that role. Indeed, we have it guaranteed in law that the Leaders of all recognized Parties in the House of Commons will continue to have a voice in deciding the board's membership. By legislating an annual endowment we have given the Institute a means by which it can preserve independence of a certain quality.
Those were the main points I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker. We have come a long way to this conclusion and I hope it will be possible for us to give third reading to this Bill very quickly. I pledged in my speech on February 17 that the Institute would complement and not compete with existing groups, organizations, and institutions devoted to peace and security. Let me reaffirm that promise. No group will suffer adverse consequences in terms of support, financial or otherwise, from this or successive Governments, I hope. Rather, we foresee the Institute stimulating the level of interest in peace and security for the benefit of all.
We have before us a sound piece of legislation. It exemplifies the best of the parliamentary process. It reflects the goals and aspirations of all Canadians. It was achieved not through excessive partisan wrangling and bitter conflict, but through discussion, compromise and, in the end, the consensus of all Parties. I am sure we will give it speedy passage so that the other place can deal with it and let it be one of the achievements for which this Parliament can be remembered. It is a tribute to all Members, and one of which we can be proud.
We are coming to the end of the parliamentary session and some of us will not be back to this Chamber as Members, certainly not myself, because I announced yesterday that I will not be reoffering myself in the election, whenever it comes, so this is probably my last speech in the House of Commons.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You never know.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have made a lot of them in the years I have served in the House of Commons since being first elected in 1953. When I came here I was so far away on the back bench that, if I were any further, I would be sitting in the lobby or in the corridor. But I survived those years, and I can only say that in making my last speech I am terribly grateful to my electors who have sent me to Parliament for these 30 years. I owe them a great deal of thanks.
Parliament and politics have been my life, and I am certainly grateful for the years I have spent here, and thankful for the opportunity to be part of this magnificent assembly which is the very heart, in my view, of Canadian life. I have seen much good work in the House of Commons by Members of Parliament, and many significant accomplishments. Among these significant accomplishments I certainly number the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security.
[DOT]	(1130)


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
International Peace and Security


Ms. Jewett:: Mr. Speaker, before those of us on this side of the House speak to the Bill, for purposes of clarification would the Minister answer a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: It is in order for the Minister to answer a question if he sees fit.


Pauline Jewett: When the first 14 members of the board, the Canadian members, are choosing a chairman and executive director, and particularly in the case of the latter, would it be possible for them to establish a search or selection committee and possibly, through that process, choose an executive director for the Institute who is not at the moment a member of the board? Would it be possible for that to be done, or must they choose the executive director from among the 14 nominated Canadian members of the board?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as provided for in the Bill, it is the obligation of the board of directors to select a chairman and director from among their own membership. No one could become a chairman or director unless that person were a member of the board. I think it will be possible for the board to select a member from among themselves. If that is not possible, they will have to use their ingenuity to solve that problem. I could give them some advice if they want to call Lake Ainslie when they reach that impasse.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, as I was sitting here listening to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), I reflected that I was hearing him for the last time in this House as a Member of the House. I had the opportunity this morning of telling him personally that I was rather sad to see this doughty fighter leaving the House of Commons. We have fought many battles here and the relationship which I have enjoyed with the Deputy Prime Minister has always been one of collegiality and cordiality despite the intenseness of some of those battles.
The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that when he first came into the House in 1953 he was so far back in the back-benches that if he were any further back he might be somewhere in the galleries. The Deputy Prime Minister will remember, of course, that that is exactly what happened to him in 1958. He sat for four years in the Members' Gallery where I first became accustomed to seeing him. However, he was back again in 1962. I am sure I am joined by my colleagues on all sides of the House in wishing the Deputy Prime Minister well in whatever the future has in store for him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I would also like to make the assumption that, in speaking on behalf of the Government on third reading of this Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister will be the only speaker for the Government today. On that assumption I can assure him that I will be the only speaker for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition on this Bill today. I would expect the same arrangement would prevail with the New Democratic Party.

June 28, 1984
International Peace and Security
I too want to compliment the members of the Standing Committee, particularly the Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), who worked so assiduously to achieve the amendments of which the Deputy Prime Minister spoke and which have vastly improved the Bill.
Immediately prior to the Bill's receiving second reading in the House last May 11, I put before Members what I believed was the agreement between the Government and my Party with respect to Bill C-32, an Act to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. As Members know, and as spokesmen for our Party have made clear in debate and before committee, we welcome the establishment of this Institute. Indeed, our Leader indicated to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last April 9, after receiving the draft Bill from the Prime Minister, that the requirement in Canada for institutional restructuring and innovation in this field is beyond question. However, as was made clear to the Government both before and after Bill C-32 was introduced into the House, we viewed the Bill as proposed to be fatally flawed in respect of the lack of independence of the centre, its lack of accountability to Parliament, and the politically negative effect that private funding of the centre might have on existing indigenous centres of research.
I need not refer today to the lengthy and very productive exchanges between the Prime Minister and my Leader which led the Government to support substantial amendments to this Bill prior to its receiving second reading support last May 11. These amendments would strengthen the independence and integrity of the Institute and provide for an appointment process which would leave no room for doubt that the board of directors would be non-partisan and would enjoy the confidence and support of all Parties. At that time I was able to report to the House, as reported at page 3656 of Hansard, the three main points of agreement between the Government and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Hansard reads:
First, the Government has accepted the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that consultations on the composition of the board of directors start immediately, especially with respect to the appointment of the chairman and the executive director, as they will be key appointments for establishing the tone and quality of the institute. Second, the Government has agreed to immediate consultation with national organizations and interested Canadians with respect to receiving nominations for the board of directors. It is our expectation, as I know it to be the Prime Minister's, that there will be full agreement on the composition of the board of directors prior to the end of committee consideration of the Bill. Third, concurrent with this consultation, the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence will be examining the Bill and recommending a formal list of national organizations which, once the Bill is passed, will become the pool from which nominees for the board of directors will be selected.
I believe this process has been respected and that consultations have been meaningful, that Canadians have participated fully in the selection of candidates for the board of directors and that the process itself has underscored the independence and integrity of the Institute.
In committee the Government presented the full and detailed amendments to which I reported agreement last May 11 and which we now have before us today.
With respect to the selection of the board of directors, the Deputy Prime Minister and I began consultations on May 25 with a view to reaching agreement on the board of directors prior to the end of committee consideration of the Bill. At that time, on behalf of my Leader, I recommended to the Deputy Prime Minister the following criteria in considering candidates for the chairmanship and executive directorship of the Institute, criteria which would enhance, I believe, the integrity and independence of the board: first, it is imperative that we consider the chairmanship and executive directorship together as a team; second, we would recommend that no present bureaucrats be considered for either position; third, it is important that the executive director in particular have academic credibility; four, these appointments should reflect concern for and competence in both disarmament and security matters; five, we would like to consider a woman for at least one of these positions.
I was most pleased when the Deputy Prime Minister put into play candidates who clearly met these criteria, and on behalf of my Leader I indicated that our Party would have no objection to these nominees.
With respect to the board of directors, at a meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister on June 1, I suggested the following criteria for selection of candidates, again with a view to enhancing the independence and integrity of the Institute: first, they should be broadly representative of the existing indigenous research community. Second, they should be nominated from the pool of recommendations the committee is receiving. Third, as the Minister for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) stated in the House, the board should not include any serving bureaucrats. Fourth, the board should include at least five women. Fifth, while the Act provides for up to seven foreign directors, we would recommend that initially there be no more than three. Six, that there be a geographical and language balance.
Current with our discussions, the Standing Committee and the Secretary of State for External Affairs initiated a detailed consultative process with national organizations and interest groups to elicit their nomination for the Board. Out of this list, and respecting the criteria outlined above, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to me on June 12 and proposed the list which he has presented to the House today. It will not be necessary for me to go over that list in my remarks.
After reviewing this list with my Leader, I reported to the Deputy Prime Minister that my Party had no objection to the nominees as put forward by the Government. It is our expectation that the Government will continue to act in good faith and adhere to these nominees. Should any nominee withdraw his or her nomination, we would expect the Government to re-establish the consultation process with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) until such time as the first board of directors is in place. And it is on this basis that my Party gives its approval to this Bill.
I next received a call from the Deputy Prime Minister on June 21 indicating that consensus could not be reached at this time respecting the Government's nominee for executive direc-
June 28, 1984

tor, and the Deputy Prime Minister suggested an alternate course which, if acceptable, would preserve the integrity of the board without putting into jeopardy the substantial agreement between the Government and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Specifically, he suggested that the Government nominate the board of directors as I have outlined and leave to the board itself the election of a chairman and executive director out of the existing membership. To ensure that such voting was done only by the Canadian-based nominees, any foreign-based nominations would not be made until after the selection of the chairman and executive director had been completed.
I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister today for his putting on the record the commitment of the future Prime Minister to honour the undertakings as presented to the House today. While this was a change from our earlier understanding, I indicated to the Deputy Prime Minister that we would have no objection to this procedure.
The committee has now reported on the Bill and the amendments reflect the points of agreement I have described to the House.
The establishment of a Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security is a substantial achievement. It is fitting that it should have been the subject of the Deputy Prime Minister's speech today, it being in all likelihood the last one he will be making to the House.
I am happy to acknowledge that the Bill before us today represents a substantial improvement to the original draft Bill. This is a tribute to the Government and to the Leader of the Opposition. I commend them for their genuine contribution to achieving a process which has enhanced the integrity and independence of the Institute.
Now, as the Institute is formed and in its early days, we must all continue to be vigilant so that the gains which have been made over the past number of months might continue to characterize the Institute. We have the genesis of a world-class Institute with integrity and with public support.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I almost had a catch in my throat when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), in his speech today, said that it would probably be his last speech since he will not be running again for a seat in the House of Commons. We may see him at the U.N. or perhaps in the Senate, but we are bound to see him again. Many of us are sorry that we will not see him here.
I am pleased that in what is probably his last speech he was able to speak on this extremely important Bill to create a Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security.
I would also like to say that we in this Party have been very appreciative of the efforts made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as well as the Secretary of State for External Affairs to create this Institute. I think it is largely owing to the zeal of the Prime Minister that such an Institute should be created that we now have the Bill before us. I suggest that the award
International Peace and Security of the Albert Einstein peace prize to the Prime Minister the other day is a tribute to the efforts he has made in his pilgrimage of peace. More importantly, I feel that he is leaving a lasting contribution as a result of the Bill we are discussing today.
The Minister has had to do much of the work in consultations with the House Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, with my Leader and myself to bring the Bill to its present excellent form. May I say, Mr. Speaker, he has also been assisted enormously by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. That Hon. Member showed great patience and understanding throughout the very long and somewhat strained deliberations in committee. The fact that the Bill should now be in the House for third reading is due in no small measure to the excellent conduct of the committee by its Chairman. I know he is not leaving politics, but if he were this too would be a very fitting tribute to him to have accomplished so much.
I think we should once again recall the title of the Bill and the name of the new Institute, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. Some of us in this Party would have liked to put in the word "research" and called it the Canadian Research Institute for International Peace and Security, but that was not approved by a majority in the committee. As one reads the purpose of the Bill as newly defined, one sees that a good deal of its purpose will embody the fostering of research.
It is the other part of the title of the Institute that I want to say a word or two about. It is an Institute for International Peace and Security. The word "international" prefaces both peace and security. We are talking about international peace and international security. It brings to mind the efforts that were made by people like Olof Palme and the members of the Palme Commission a few years ago when they were studying disarmament issues and who coined the phrase "a common security". When they talk about security, they are not talking about it in terms of each nation building up its defences, each nation vying with others to be as militarily strong or, if possible, superior to others. Not at all. They are talking about, and I think it is implicit in the new Canadian Institute title, a common security, the wish of all of us to reach a position where there is international security which is a common security. It is therefore extremely important for me, at any rate, and for members of this Party that the Institute should be dedicated both to international peace and international security.
We feel that the purpose clause as studied and drafted and redrafted has come through very strongly indeed, taking many of the ideas brought to us by witnesses before the committee and from many of the submissions made to the committee. Perhaps since other speakers have not mentioned it, let me put on the record the purpose clause, which is Clause 4 of the Bill. It reads:

June 28, 1984
International Peace and Security
4. The purpose of the Institute is to increase knowledge and understanding of the issues relating to international peace and security from a Canadian perspective, with particular emphasis on arms control, disarmament, defence and conflict resolution, and to
(a)	foster, fund and conduct research on matters relating to international peace and security;
(b)	promote scholarship in matters relating to international peace and security;
(c)	study and propose ideas and policies for the enhancement of international peace and security;
(d)	collect and disseminate information on, and encourage public discussion of, issues of international peace and security.
Other important amendments were made to the Bill, some proposed by the Government and some proposed by the Opposition Parties. I would mention particularly the enhancement of the role of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and the strengthening of broad and general parliamentary oversight. Some amendments we would have liked to see did not get through. We would have liked at least half of the board of directors to be women and we are sorry that in this first list only four are women. The reason I mention that particularly, Mr. Speaker, is that from the Voice of Women onwards Canadian women have played such an incredibly important and strong role in the peace and disarmament movement in this country. I would only hope subsequent appointments will show a greater recognition of their enormous efforts of these many decades.
One puzzle that remains, and the Minister in reply to my question did not entirely resolve it, is if the board of directors, after it chooses its chairman from among its number-and it seems quite appropriate that it choose its chairman from among its number-should decide that it would like to look outside its membership for an executive director, it is not entirely clear yet to me that it can do so. At the meeting of the standing committee, the Minister implied that it could do so, and in answer to my question today he still left the door slightly ajar for that to be possible. But I would have liked that point to have been made more explicit.
It seems to me the position of executive director is absolutely crucial to the success of the Institute. A search should be made to ensure that the very strongest and best Canadian be chosen for this position. The best way would be for the 14 Canadian members of the board to establish a search committee, a very common practice in the academic world, to receive and accept applications for executive director. Then this committee would conduct a series of hearings with such nominees in order to ensure that the very best executive director is chosen. If a person outside the board were so chosen, then by the Governor in Council that person would be made a member of the board. This would then raise the board membership to 15, leaving two spaces for non-Canadians. When the Minister is talking with members of the board, the first 14, I hope he will make it clear that that oportunity is open to them. We have had many discussions, the Minister and I, about the very important role of the executive director and about the kind of person who might well be chosen for that position. I know that many members of the disarmament community have also given this matter a great deal of thought and have provided a great
deal of input as to the kind of executive director they think would be best for a Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security.
I hope it is clearly understood that the 14 Canadian directors could indeed establish such a search committee, go outside their number, find a person they consider best for the position of executive director, and have that executive director then made a member of the board.
I am worried that the amended Clause 7 does not provide for this. It indicates that the first executive director shall be elected by the board from among its members, yet the Minister indicated in committee that the first executive director could be chosen in the way which I have just outlined and then be made a member of the board. I am assuming that this is possible.
We in this Party are very glad that the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security is to become a reality before the end of this session of Parliament. We have been glad to assist in a variety of ways, which I hope have been helpful to the Minister and to the chairman of the committee, to ensure that the Institute would be a world-class Institute and that it would at least have sufficient funds to get started. We are very supportive of all the efforts which I know the board will make to ensure that the Institute is the world-class Institute we all want it to be.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following Bills without amendment: Bill C-5, an Act to amend the Radiation Emitting Devices Act; Bill C-8, an Act respecting the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties, to amend the Currency and Exchange Act, the Customs Tariff and the Export and Import Permits Act and to repeal the Anti-dumping Act; Bill C-37, an Act to amend the National Housing Act; Bill C-40, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act; and Bill C-49, an Act to approve, give effect to and declare valid the Agreement between the Committee for Original People's Entitlement, representing the Inuvialuit of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, and the Government of Canada and to amend the National Parks Act in consequence thereof.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
June 28, 1984

Government House,
Ottawa.
June 28, 1984 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Brian Dickson, Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 28th day of June, 1984, at 12.00 noon, for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere, Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-32, an Act to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on this most important Bill. When I spoke to it on April 18 at second reading, I said the following:
Mr. Speaker, as the culmination of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) peace initiative we have before us Bill C-32, an Act to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. The principles involved in this legislation are sound. Let us cease this ongoing nitpicking and send this legislation to committee where we can adjust the language and change "shalls" to "mays" if advisable. Let us get on with this legislation. With regard to the principles behind this legislation, we need only ask whether it is needed, what its dimensions are to be, and where the institute shall be located.
The Bill has been considered extensively in committee. Many people appeared before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to express their views. Some amendments to the Bill have been made. I am pleased that the Bill will be passed before we adjourn tomorrow.
I want to say again that I support the Bill, but let no one think that the proposed Institute will solve the conflicts of the world or, for that matter, reduce in the short term present tensions between the two superpowers of the world. However, it is a breath of fresh air in the world process of dialogue and study toward world peace. In particular, it may be some help in building the bridge of reason, discussion and accord between our two mighty neighbours to the south and to the north of us. Again I say let us locate this Institute in western Canada as a beginning of that bridge between our two neighbours.
International Peace and Security
In closing, I wish the retiring Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) well in his future endeavours. I suggest to him that he should wear his kilt more often; it is becoming.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I know the understanding is that there should not be more speeches than those of the three Parties in the House and the one of the independent Member. However, I am sure everyone would allow me to say a few words.
I thank very warmly all Hon. Members of the three Parties, as well as the independent Member, for their immense cooperation during the work of the past month. We toiled and smiled together. I thank Hon. Members of the Official Opposition, Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party, Hon. Members of the Government Party and the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko).

Without wishing to prolong debate unduly, I want to express my sincere appreciation for the unremitting efforts of Hon. Members sitting on the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, which I have the privilege of chairing. Thanks to their efforts, as was so eloquently said by a Member of this House who spoke earlier, we were finally able to return to the House, on time, a Bill sent to our Committee by Parliament for consideration and amended after the Committee heard several witnesses.
I also want to join the other Members in offering the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister of Canada and Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) our best wishes, since he has announced that he will no longer be sitting in the House. Parliament will no longer be the same, and we shall miss him. I wish him the very best, and in doing so, I know I speak for all members of the Committee, who are sorry to see him go.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for letting me join in this concert of eulogies. We on the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence are very pleased that the Bill can now be adopted thanks to this admirable understanding between the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the critic for the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Pauline Jewett).


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.

June 28, 1984
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement CANADA-NOVA SCOTIA OIL AND GAS AGREEMENT ACT


MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-43, an Act respecting the Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement on Offshore Oil and Gas Resource Management and Revenue Sharing and to make related and consequential amendments, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You mentioned that Mr. MacEachen is moving the motion in the absence of Mr. Chretien. Given the fact that we intend to move to Committee of the Whole, can we have some clarification as to who will be here to witness on behalf of the Government throughout that phase of our proceedings? Does this transfer the responsibility for that phase to Mr. MacEachen or will Mr. Chretien be here to answer for this agreement?


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, as often happens in these circumstances, this is a very good occasion for Parliamentary Secretaries to carry out their duties as Parliamentary Secretaries and assist the Minister in the House of Commons. The Parliamentary Secretary, with the help of the officials, will be very pleased to answer the few questions which any Hon. Member may have on the subject.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce second reading of Bill C-43, a Bill to establish in law the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Oil and Gas Agreement. As Members will recall, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Oil Agreement was signed on March 2, 1982. Legislation to ensure the full implementation of the agreement was introduced in this House and in the Nova Scotia Legislature on May 31, 1984.
Bill C-43 establishes in law the major elements of the agreement, a co-operative regime to manage offshore petroleum activity and a revenue-sharing regime that ensures the province reaps the lion's share of benefits in this activity.
This legislation, and the Canada-Nova Scotia Agreement which led to it, are excellent examples of federal-provincial co-operation. Both were achieved in a climate of close and positive negotiation. Major benefits have already accrued to the province. Since March, 1982 33 exploration agreements worth more than $2.4 billion have been negotiated. In 1983 approximately $150 million was directly invested in Nova Scotia by the offshore petroleum industry. About 2,000 jobs have been created in Nova Scotia by offshore petroleum activity, and another several hundred resulting from the multiplier effect such job creation produces.
Two hundred companies in Nova Scotia are now involved in the offshore effort. Many of these are local firms that specialize in marine and logistical services as well as fabrication. Others have moved to Nova Scotia to establish businesses and
employ Nova Scotians. These are real achievements made in just two years. The legislation before us will implement the Agreement that contributed to them and ensure that these benefits continue to accrue to Nova Scotia for many years to come.
The concept underlying the implementation of the Canada-Nova Scotia Agreement is unique in the history of federal-provincial relations. Both governments have agreed to put aside their respective claims to jurisdiction over the offshore and to introduce complementary legislation to implement a common, unified system for revenues and the joint management of petroleum activity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend the Right Hon. the Deputy to Her Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, the Right Hon. the Deputy to her Excellency had been pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill S-14, an Act to implement a convention between Canada and the United States with respect to taxes on income and on capital-Chapter No. 20.
Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto-Chapter No. 21.
Bill C-7, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff-Chapter No. 22.
Bill C-5, an Act to amend the Radiation Emitting Devices Act-Chapter No.
23.
Bill C-49, an Act to approve, give effect to and declare valid the Agreement between the Committee for Original Peoples' Entitlement, representing the lnuvialuit of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, and the Government of Canada and to amend the National Parks Acts in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 24.
Bill C-8, an Act respecting the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties, to amend the Currency and Exchange Act, the Customs Tariff and the Export and Import Permits Act and to repeal the Anti-dumping Act-Chapter No. 25.
Bill C-37, an Act to amend the National Housing Act-Chapter No. 26.
Bill C-40, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act-Chapter No. 27.
June 28, 1984

Bill C-234, an Act to establish standards for the manufacture of the national flag of Canada-Chapter No. 28.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen (for Mr. Chretien) that Bill C-43, an Act respecting the Canada-Nova Scotia Agreement on Offshore Oil and Gas Resource Management and Revenue Sharing and to make related and consequential amendments, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today, Bill C-43, will make the interim Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Oil and Gas Board a permanent institution with legal authority to manage petroleum activity in the offshore Nova Scotia area. Both Ministers will delegate substantial authority to the Board. Where authority is retained at the ministerial level, complementary delegation by the two federal and provincial Ministers to one another as appropriate will ensure a unified regime.
The operation of the interim Board over the past two years has been completely satisfactory to both Canada and Nova Scotia. Not once in those two years has there been a need to use the mechanisms dealing with conflict resolution. Agreement has always been achieved through positive discussion. The makeup of the interim Board will remain unchanged as it gains the status of a permanent body. The reason for this is quite simple. Why change a good thing when it is working? The Administrator of the Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration will continue to be the Board's chairperson and the federal Government will continue to have two additional representatives on the Board, as will the provincial Government.
Under the authority set by this Bill, the Board will be responsible for managing oil and gas activity everywhere off the coast of Nova Scotia. However, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be empowered to accept or modify a decision of the Board. The Minister will also be able to make a decision in the absence of one made by the Board providing he or she has asked for one from the Board. The federal Minister will delegate to the Nova Scotia Minister of Mines and Energy ultimate authority for management of the Bay of Fundy, Sable Island and its "footprint", the shallow area around the island. The federal Minister will retain ultimate authority in all other offshore areas where significant or commercial discoveries or projects overlap the Sable Island "footprint" and the rest of the offshore. Both Ministers will have the authority to execute
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement decisions. The delegation will also provide that each Minister will be able to delay decisions relating to the other's areas of ultimate authority.
These management provisions are important for two reasons. First, they ensure that both federal and provincial interests are protected. Second, they provide the petroleum industry with the certainty it needs to proceed with development. We fully expect that the Board will continue to make decisions on the basis of a consensus, as it has done without exception, for more than two years.
One aspect of Bill C-43 that is particularly important is the formula to share revenues from the offshore. The legislation ensures that Nova Scotia will receive the lion's share of offshore petroleum revenues. In fact, in the early years of the agreement, the province will receive substantially more revenues than if it owned the resource on land. There will be wider sharing of revenues only if the province's relative fiscal capacity-that is, its capacity to raise revenues from taxation and from revenue-sharing agreements with the federal Government-exceeds that of almost all other provinces.
Until Nova Scotia's per capita fiscal capacity reaches 110 per cent of the national average-adjusted upward by two percentage points for every one percentage point that the province's unemployment rate exceeds the national average- the province will receive all offshore revenue, including a major federal tax, the petroleum and gas revenue tax, but excluding the federal share of the corporate income tax.
These revenues are substantial. They include the basic royalty; the progressive incremental royalty; bonus payments and licence fees; revenues that are equivalent to a provincial-type corporate tax and retail sales tax in the offshore region; and, the federal petroleum and gas revenue tax. All of these revenues collected from the Bay of Fundy and from Sable Island and its "footprint" will go to the provincial government, no matter how high its fiscal capacity.
The federal Government will begin to share in revenues from other areas of the offshore only when the province's per capita fiscal capacity exceeds the 110 per cent level, adjusted by the unemployment factor. In the meantime, a Nova Scotia Offshore Oil and Gas Revenue Fund will be established by the federal Government to collect the province's share of the revenues.
Some concern has been expressed about the impact this agreement will have on equalization payments to Nova Scotia. I want to assure Hon. Members that Bill C-43 contains special measures to ensure that Nova Scotia experiences real net increases in its revenues. In accordance with the principle upon which the equalization scheme is based, equalization payments to Nova Scotia will be reduced as the province's fiscal capacity increases because of offshore petroleum revenue. However, Bill C-43 contains a special provision to protect the provincial government from a situation in which it loses a dollar of equalization for every dollar of offshore petroleum revenue. Under Bill C-43, Nova Scotia will be reimbursed for much of
80152 44

June 28, 1984
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement the reduction in equalization payments. In fact, the province will be protected for up to ten years from the full effects of reductions as it gains offshore revenues.
A third aspect of this legislation which I would like to address is the provision to allow the Government of Nova Scotia to purchase up to 50 per cent of any Crown share in a natural gas field, and 25 per cent in an oil field. It is important to note that this special clause in no way changes the Crown share provisions of the Canada Oil and Gas Act. Rather, it deals with how the Crown share is divided between the federal and provincial governments.
Bill C-43 also provides for the establishment of a $200 million development fund to help Nova Scotia defray some of the costs of providing an infrastructure for offshore petroleum activity. Basically, this fund will assist Nova Scotia in putting in place the kinds of facilities and services necessary for the province to take maximum advantage of offshore petroleum opportunities. The fund will be made available in four annual instalments of $50 million. Nova Scotia will start to repay the $200 million only in the third year after substantial natural gas or oil production begins in the offshore.
I would like to take a few brief minutes to address some of the other special provisions which are contained in the legislation. For example, the Bill will require petroleum companies negotiating exploration agreements for offshore Nova Scotia to submit a plan which shows, to the satisfaction of the Canada-Nova Scotia Board, how the province's residents will benefit from the activity. Companies involved in exploration projects will be required to show how they propose to employ Nova Scotians in all aspects of their work. They will also be required to provide manufacturers, consultants, contractors and service companies based in Nova Scotia with a full and fair opportunity to compete in the supply of goods and services to an exploration program. Further, companies will be required to submit programs satisfactory to both governments for training, education and research, and technology.
Finally, before being sold elsewhere, oil and gas produced in offshore Nova Scotia will be made available in the province to satisfy consumer needs and to serve as a feedstock for existing industries. New industrial facilities will also be ensured of the availability of those feedstocks in excess of that needed to meet the demand of the existing industrial capacity in eastern Canada.
I am confident that the Members of this House will support this new legislation because it provides a co-operative and workable way of managing the offshore and a generous revenue-sharing system that ensures major, long-term benefits to the Province of Nova Scotia.


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we have reviewed Bill C-43, an Act respecting the Canada-Nova Scotia Agreement on Offshore Oil and Gas Resource Management and Revenue Sharing, which was tabled in the House of Commons on Thursday, May 31, 1984. This Bill, with one major exception, basically gives effect to the provisions of the Canada-Nova Scotia Agreement on Offshore Oil and Gas
Resource Management and Revenue Sharing which was signed by both the federal Government and the Government of Nova Scotia two years ago on March 2, 1982.
The major exception in this Bill to the original Agreement is the provision that Nova Scotia's equalization payments will not drop by more than 10 per cent a year. This recognizes that the Atlantic provinces, which lag behind the rest of Canada in average family income and economic development, will require support from the rest of the country through equalization payments for some time to come.
The economic discrepancy between Atlantic Canada and other regions of the country is an important factor to keep in mind. It has placed provinces like Nova Scotia, which was one of the most economically active provinces at the time of Confederation-rich with shipbuilding, forestry and fishing- in the category of the "have not" provinces. The offshore oil and gas resources represent a unique opportunity to release Nova Scotia from that category and transform it into a "have" province.
This Agreement, with its acknowledged flaws, represents the best deal which Premier John Buchanan of Nova Scotia could wring from this Liberal Government. Premier Buchanan should be congratulated for getting any deal from this Government. Already the Government has had brought to its attention flaws in this Agreement as late as a few moments before we rose to discuss it in the House. Major flaws have been found in the wording of the Agreement. There are also aspects of the Agreement which we feel are not practical in terms of such items as the PGRT, which allows any province a vested stake in revenues from a federal tax, allowing that province to possibly hold the rest of the country hostage.
However, events may pass this Agreement by. The Conservative Party has been formulating a concrete set of new and innovative policies to promote economic development in Atlantic Canada. An important component of our program is the promotion of a positive and constructive climate of co-operation between the national Government and the provinces. A major feature of our policy for economic development is the proper management of the offshore oil and gas resources.
I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, if I could ask my colleagues to allow me to continue my speech?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: What is the problem to which the Hon. Member refers?


Pat Carney: The noise level, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Of course, the Hon. Member is allowed to have proper order in the House while she is speaking.


Pat Carney: I will continue.
The Hon. Brian Mulroney has written to all Atlantic Premiers to communicate to them our proposals for the development of the offshore, proposals which we feel are more
June 28, 1984

equitable than those contained in this legislation. Our agreement in principle has already been accepted by Premier Brian Peckford in St. John's, Newfoundland, earlier this month. When we assume office, we have made commitments to introduce the necessary legislation to effect our Atlantic offshore accord for those provinces that wish to avail themselves of its more equitable terms. Therefore, viewed in that light, many features of this Agreement may become irrelevant in the future.
Why, Mr. Speaker, do we say that the Conservative Atlantic offshore accord is more equitable than the legislation before the House? Let us compare some of the features of both Parties' positions. Under the terms of the Canada-Nova Scotia Agreement, the federal Government will fully manage and administer the offshore and would make all the final decisions, as has been explained. The federal Government would have an absolute majority on a management board which would be headed by an Ottawa bureaucrat-no matter how able, still a bureaucrat. In the case of disputes with the provincial governments, the federal Minister could overrule any decision made by the board. In addition, the revenue-sharing scheme provided for in this Bill follows a fairly rigid formula under which Nova Scotia would receive more revenue up front than in later years. However, at some point in time-and this was just glossed over by the Hon. Member-the federal Government would receive most, if not all, of the additional revenues. In effect, there is a cap on the province's share which restricts the amount of wealth which a province can earn from the resources off its shore.
In contrast, the Atlantic offshore accord, proposed by Mr. Mulroney, would recognize the right of the Atlantic provinces to be the principal beneficiary of the wealth of the oil and gas off their shores consistent with a strong and united Canada. An essential feature of the Atlantic offshore accord is the concept that all provinces should be treated the same for revenue-sharing purposes, whether their oil and gas resources are on land or offshore. Mr. Mulroney is proposing that the Atlantic provinces will have the right to establish and collect resource revenues as if these resources were on land, giving them equality with other producing provinces such as British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
A second major feature of the Atlantic offshore accord is the recognition by the Conservative Party that a region should be a full partner, not a partial partner, in its economic development. The Atlantic offshore accord allows for joint management of the offshore resource by both the federal level and provincial level of governments.
A third feature of the Atlantic offshore accord is that it charts a new course in the often stormy waters of co-operative federalism. It was negotiated over several months with the support of other Premiers and energy ministers of the western oil-producing provinces before it was accepted by Premier Peckford. In accepting the agreement in principle, Premier Peckford said: "We are showing Canadians the first rays of light in the new Canadian dawn". Premier Buchanan of Nova
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement Scotia had this to say about the Atlantic offshore accord in his communication to Mr. Mulroney-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair regrets to interrupt the Hon. Member but this is the fourth time she has referred to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) by his name. She may refer to him either by his riding or his official title as Leader of the Official Opposition.


Pat Carney: You are quite correct, Mr. Speaker.
Premier Buchanan in his communication said, and I quote:
The Government of Nova Scotia, while not having sufficient time to totally assess the proposal, has read it with great interest and is most impressed with your attitude. The idea of an Atlantic Canada oil and gas policy is one which we would be interested in discussing in more detail.
In our discussions, Premier Buchanan has acknowledged the Atlantic offshore accord to be both unique and, in his words, equitable in its approach to both revenue sharing and to the administration and management of the resource. The Government of Nova Scotia has, of course, already passed its mirror legislation regarding this Bill before the House today, but under the terms of that Act the Government of Nova Scotia could exercise its right to accept any elements of a further agreement negotiated with the Government of Newfoundland or, presumably, any other offshore province.
For the record, let us establish the 15 points of the Atlantic offshore accord as it would apply to Nova Scotia. The first heading is "Management". Point one: we recognize the legitimate desire of Nova Scotia to ensure that the pace and manner of development maximizes the social and economic benefits to the province. We will be prepared to establish a system of management which recognizes Nova Scotia's right to share in the control of all aspects of resource development.
Point two: the principle of joint management will be achieved by the establishment of a joint agency consisting of three representatives of the federal Government, three representatives of the provincial Government, and a mutually acceptable independent chairman.
Point three: our agreement will give this agency clear and precise management criteria which will govern the exercise of each Government's authority in areas specified in the legislation.
Point four: federal jurisdiction with regard to environmental protection under the Fisheries Act, the Canada Shipping Act, and other areas of federal jurisdiction, would not be affected.
Point five: a further principle concerns the protection of Nova Scotia workers and, especially, Nova Scotia's traditional industry, the fishery. Such protection will be ensured by the application of the province's social legislation to the offshore.
Point six: if either the agency or Ministers fail to reach agreement, a suspensive veto provision will apply. In the national interest, the federal Government will have the ultimate decision in matters affecting the pace and mode of exploration and the pace of production until national self-sufficiency is reached or if self-sufficiency and security of supply has been lost. There will be an independent, objective determi-

June 28, 1984
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement nation of what constitutes self-sufficiency and security of supply. The province would have the ultimate decision in matters affecting the mode of development or the actual development plan, subject to a federal override which would only apply if the province's choice, as determined by an independent objective process, delayed unreasonably the attainment of self-sufficiency and security of supply.
The second heading of the Atlantic accord is entitled "Revenue Sharing". Point seven: we believe that the principle of revenue sharing between the federal and provincial levels should be the same for all oil and gas producing regions, without discrimination. Therefore, Nova Scotia will be entitled to establish and collect resource revenues as if these resources were on land. The federal Government will maintain the right to establish and collect federal taxes, where appropriate. Federal and provincial taxes of general application, such as the corporate income taxes and sales taxes, will apply.
Point eight: offshore oil will be included in the category of hydrocarbon resources which attract market-sensitive prices.
Point nine: a Progressive Conservative administration would agree to establish a joint offshore development fund in order to provide an accelerated revenue flow to help finance infrastructure required to bring the resource onstream.
Point ten: if, on assuming office, the new Government decides to vest in itself the Crown-carried shares of offshore Nova Scotia, then these rights and shares will be shared equitably by both Governments.
Point 11: local job creation and labour development would be of paramount concern. Oil-related infrastructure could be expanded and the offices of oil companies, including, where possible, Petro-Canada and federal departments, dealing with Nova Scotia offshore and the staff of the joint agency, would be located in the province.
Point 12: upgrading of infrastructure facilities in relation to the offshore would begin as soon as possible, following the signing of an agreement.
Point 13: it is important that there should be no dollar for dollar loss of equalization payments as a result of offshore revenues flowing to the province. The current equalization provisions will apply. Nova Scotia would receive offset payments from the federal Government equal to 90 per cent of a year's reduction in equalization payments. Beginning in the fifth year of production, this offset rate would be reduced by 10 per cent for each subsequent year.
Point 14: we believe that the question concerning ownership is secondary to control of the resources and the wealth they will produce. Should the Province of Nova Scotia or any other province wish to propose a constitutional amendment concerning an entrenchment of the offshore agreement, and if the necessary number of other provinces agree, as is provided for in the Canada Act, a Progressive Conservative Government will propose to Parliament the appropriate amendment.
Point 15: it is proposed that an agreement would be concluded immediately following the formation of a Progressive Conservative Government, with legislation being introduced within a reasonable period thereafter and, in any case, not more than one year. In announcing the agreement in principle in St. John's, the Conservative Leader said:
We want the energy policy to be a unifying force in Canada-not an instrument of division so favoured by the Liberals.
He told his audience:
This commitment today is an indication that new attitudes and new approaches to common problems can transform them swiftly into splendid opportunities for economic growth and prosperity.
In comparison, the legislation before the House today can be categorized as rigid, centralized and discriminatory. Rigid, because of the various formulas used for revenue sharing. Centralized, because management rests with the federal Government. Discriminatory, because the Atlantic Provinces are treated differently from the western oil and gas producing provinces. That is why we say our proposal is a better deal and that is why we will be introducing it before this House when we are in government. That is why Premier Brian Peckford, in accepting the agreement in principle for Newfoundland, said:
Both sides approached the issue in good faith with a genuine desire to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement and the process was successful.
That is why Newfoundlanders gave the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) 14 standing ovations and why they cheered him from the balconies of the House of Assembly.
The accord we have reached, which has been offered to the other provinces, is respectful of Canadian constitutional law, protective of national energy priorities, and sensitive to the social and economic needs of the people of Atlantic Canada. As I said, it was conducted in full consultation with the Premiers and energy ministers of the other provinces. It provides for a fair share of offshore revenues and for a real and positive role by both governments in the management of the development of the offshore resource. We firmly believe that the offshore will be an important building block for Canada in the years ahead, particularly Atlantic Canada. In coming to this agreement we are showing that Canadians are willing and able to listen to each other, to identify concerns and act together in a common cause.
Although we support Nova Scotia's effort in winning any concessions over the offshore in these dying days of a dying Liberal Government, there is one feature of this Bill which is repugnant to our Party and which should be repugnant to all Canadians. That, of course, is the retroactive back-in, which effectively appropriates without compensation exploration and production rights previously issued. This retroactive back-in was introduced in the Liberal Government's national energy policy.
It is repugnant because it is the action of a country which cannot or will not keep its commitments. Investors around the world lost confidence in Canada because the rules of the game were changed after the investment was made and the property right acquired. Our Party is firmly on record in its opposition to the retroactive back-in component of the Crown share. The
June 28, 1984

Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) and the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) and other members of our caucus have been adamant in voicing our opposition to what amounts to straight theft. The Leader of the Opposition, in one of his first statements on energy policy, said:
The federal action resembled nothing more than a hold up at a corner gas station at 3 a.m.
There is so much obvious retroactivity and confiscation in the NEP that investors lost whatever trust and confidence they had in the federal government. Simply put, they would no longer make long-term commitments because they had no longer believed that the Government would honour its own undertakings.
Opponents of the retroactive back-in claim that expropriation without compensation violates Canada's obligations under international law. The concept that Canadians would welch on their word and tear up old agreements led to an unprecedented outflow of capital from Canada following the introduction of the NEP. Billions of dollars held by both residents and nonresidents fled the country seeking more secure and stable investment climates. The damage caused by the retroactive feature of the back-in may never be fully measured in terms of the lost opportunities this punitive measure denied.
In discussing the retroactive back-in it is important to note the difference between providing for Canadian participation and retroactively expropriating property without compensation. The Conservative Party fully supports the concept that Canadians should participate in the wealth of oil and gas resources. Other countries such as Norway and Britain have reserved for their own right a share of the production of the oil and gas wealth. But it is critical that such intentions be announced at the time the exploration and drilling rights are being acquired, and therefore known in advance to all parties concerned. When the oil and gas industry is investing billions of dollars, much of it raised from Canadian investors, the industry simply wants to know the rules of the game and they wish some assurance that the rules will not be changed retroactively. That is the effect of the retroactive back-in.
The second point deals with the back-in provisions in the legislation now before the House. There is some confusion in the oil industry with regard to the reference to the back-in in the Act, and I gather some confusion on the part of the Government which wishes to propose an amendment to this point. The retroactive back-in is not necessarily enshrined in the legislation before us. It was introduced in Bill C-48, the Canada Oil and Gas Act. As Premier John Buchanan points out, the Bill before us simply provides for Nova Scotia's participation in the event that the back-in clause is ever activated. It is important to note that it has never been exercised because it applies to the acquisition of production rights, and the oil and gas discoveries affected by the back-in are still a long way from production.
This Act s'imply states that, prior to transferring or disposing of any Crown share in the offshore region, the Nova Scotia Government shall have the right to acquire a 50 per cent portion of the Crown share in respect of the natural gas field, and a 25 per cent portion of the Crown share in respect of an
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement
oil field. In other words, Nova Scotia is saying that if the federal Government picks up a share of the action in the offshore production game, it wants a piece of the action.
In contrast, under the terms of the Atlantic offshore accord, there would be no need for a retroactive back-in because the accord permits any province to impose any revenue regime it desires on the offshore resource. If the revenue regime is uneconomic, the oil and gas development will not proceed. The onus is on the province as well as the federal Government to ensure that the fiscal terms make that development viable.
Some Liberal opponents in the Atlantic region say that the Conservatives want to give all the money to the oil companies, but exactly the reverse is the case. We are proposing to give all the money to the provinces themselves, reserving for the federal Government the right to impose federal taxes. It is not, therefore, the Crown share itself to which we are opposed, but the execution of the Crown share retroactively without compensation, which is basically unCanadian.
In closing, let me summarize the basic position of the Conservative energy policy which has evolved in discussions and consultations over the last few months. Details of the policy will be announced in the next few weeks but it follows basic principles. First, these include the fact that energy should be used to unite the country, not divide it as the national energy policy has done.
Second, in order to ensure energy security Canada needs balanced development of its energy resources from all regions of the country and from all sources-oil and gas, hydro, nuclear and alternative sources. With adequate resources no region of the country can hold the rest of the nation hostage when it comes to supplies of energy.
Third, it is the responsibility of the federal Government to ensure that the fiscal regime in place will permit the development of the resource in order to create jobs and tax revenues. A punitive tax regime which discourages the development of the resource, as is the case under the NEP, is not in the national interest. I have personally visited Venture and some of the other offshore areas and there is great concern that if the taxation provisions of the NEP are applied, those developments will never go ahead. In fact there is no energy development in the country today, whether Husky Oil in Saskatchewan or the oil sands in Alberta, except where the taxation provisions of the national energy policy have been waived. The national interest is served by an energy policy which allows industry to get on with the job of finding and developing the oil and gas reserves in order to create jobs and revenue and to contribute to a strong and united Canada. That would be the goal of a Conservative energy policy under the Hon. Member for Central Nova.
[DOT] (BOO)


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I will not speak at great length. Much of what can be said about the Bill has been said either by the mover of the Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary, or by the Official Opposition critic. It is not necessary to analyse the Bill any further. The content of

June 28, 1984
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement
the Bill is self-explanatory for those who are interested in this particular kind of legislation. I suspect that that would encompass a large number of people in a variety of different jurisdictions across the country. I hope that the fact that the Government of Canada was able to work out an agreement with the Province of Nova Scotia is a foreteller of things to come. I hope that attitudes are in fact beginning to soften and that the conciliatory and necessary process of making agreements is going to become the order of the day. It has not been over the past number of days. That fact has contributed significantly to the lack of trust which had developed and is still in evidence between the various provincial authorities, regardless of their political stripe, and the federal administration.
I am always amused that my colleagues in the Official Opposition spend so much time telling us what they will do when they form the Government. I think that that is perhaps somewhat self-serving. It is quite legitimate nevertheless. I am also interested in listening to the views of the members of the Conservative Party as they explain how they would have worked out a better agreement. They point with some pride, which is perhaps justifiable, to the fact that as an Opposition Party they have been able to come to an agreement with the government in a province which happens to share their particular political philosophy. I want to assure you that we in this Party could probably come to an agreement with the government of the Province of Manitoba on a variety of different issues. I do not doubt for a moment that we could from time to time unveil policies which would be of interest to the public of Canada and which would show quite clearly our ability to put in place agreements which would work to the advantage of Canadians coast to coast. In the process we would indicate that that would be what we would do if we were the Government.
I will give the House an example to consider. It is known by all that the Province of Manitoba has an enviable record in terms of the creation of employment for young people. Its record is the best in the country. If we formed the federal Government, I am quite sure that we could work out an arrangement whereby the federal Government could arrange for similar kinds of programs to be put in place in all other provinces. I think we could probably issue a press statement to that effect indicating how we would do it. However, we are not the government and therefore it is idle rhetoric because it means very little to anyone. As I was listening to the official spokesman for the Official Opposition speaking of that Party's agreement with Newfoundland it reminded me a lot of the time when it was in government. When that Party was in government, but with a minority, it was going to govern as if it were a majority. Now that it is in opposition, it is going to operate as if it were the government. I cannot help but wonder if that is a particularly useful way to operate. However, I will not dwell on that. That is politics.


Mr. Blais:: Unwise?


Ian Deans: Well, it is politics. This kind of legislation is useful. Hopefully, it will be useful to the Province of Nova
Scotia. If it had been otherwise, I am sure it would not have signed the agreement.
I would like to express a concern which we have expressed over many years. It is absolutely necessary when dealing with the Atlantic provinces to move toward putting legislation in place which, if used wisely, will bring about the desired economic results and will establish for those jurisdictions a far greater degree of economic independence. We are all striving for that. That would be the most desirable of situations. Hopefully, as a result of this agreement together with others we will be able to see the Province of Nova Scotia move more rapidly toward a position where the economy of the province will be operating at such a level that the provincial government would be able to say with some assurance that it is able to operate in a reasonably economically independent way. Hopefully it will be able to provide employment for those who live and want to live there and to provide economic opportunity for those who want to become part of the development of the province. This is one of the ways that that can be accomplished.
The very fact that we are able to pass this legislation today is indicative of a desire on the part of everyone in the House of Commons to try to come to an understanding and to ratify agreements which, although they may not be everything that everyone would have wished, are satisfactory to both parties. In this case I believe that to be true. Although in this case the Province of Nova Scotia would have wanted more and perhaps a greater degree of independence in its entire operation, after careful consideration and negotiation it accepted that this would work to its advantage and therefore was worthy of its signature on the bottom line.
In saying that I do not want to nit-pick over the terms. I do not want to spend a lot of time going into the details of how the legislation could have been improved, the reason being that it would not serve any useful purpose at the moment. The key is that the parties involved are satisfied that this is the agreement they want at the moment. It is not the last agreement, neither is it the final agreement on this question. Hopefully a continual negotiation process will go on. Hopefully, as time passes, this agreement will be modified and improved in such a way as to do two things. It should be improved to ensure that the province receives the maximum degree of benefit from the resource. It should be improved also to guarantee that the country will receive significant benefit from the resource. The development of an energy policy is not simply for economic purposes for the jurisdiction involved, although it certainly is useful in that regard. I am not suggesting that anyone said it was. I am saying that it provides a stability for the country as a whole. The better we are able to produce energy from the resources which are available to us in all parts of this country, the better we are able to transport that energy from one point to another, the better we are able to interconnect those areas where the need is evident with those areas where the resource is abundant, the better we will be able to create an economy in this country which will be forward looking, dynamic, aggressive and job-producing. I
June 28, 1984

recognize that there is imperfection in everything that we do and I admit that this could be improved upon. But I say that this kind of agreement and willingness to compromise and the capacity to seek out the best common denominator and agree to it is what co-operative federalism is all about.
I hasten to add, in using that particular term, that that is very much part of our Party and what those who established this Party envisaged when they set it up. They envisaged the development of that co-operative spirit and the capacity to give and take by recognizing and fulfilling the needs of one area with resources from another area which has the capacity to do so for the benefit of all. That is what the spirit of co-operative federalism is all about. That is what agreements such as this exemplify.
We will support the Bill and the amendment. With respect to the amendment, I must confess that at the time and amendment was given to us we had no knowledge that it was in the offing.


Pat Carney: There is no amendment.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: There will be no amendment.


Ian Deans: That makes it somewhat different. I did not hear that said. However, not being aware that an amendment was in the offing, I took the opportunity to discuss the matter briefly with federal and provincial representatives and I had the impression from those discussions that they were satisfied that the amendment would have been acceptable to them. However, it is quite clear that the Official Opposition does not want the amendment to pass.


Pat Carney: There is no amendment.


Ian Deans: I will accept that. We support that passage of this legislation and in fact recommend to others that they begin the process of attempting to work out similar agreements in order to show the country that the federal and provincial governments, if the will is there, can work together toward the common good.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is always somewhat edifying to listen to the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). I suggest that he could have been a little more generous in acknowledging that the Conservative Party of Canada has recently demonstrated its commitment to co-operative federalism in a very concrete and positive way through the agreement with Newfoundland. Instead, he chose to indicate that he could reach an agreement with the Province of Manitoba. Our Party would prefer that the New Democratic Party put in writing what are some of its future commitments.
Let me relate some of the action taken by the NDP during my brief life in this Parliament. I recall that it was the NDP that voted against a government that had a fairly strong orientation to the west. It kicked it out of office. I wonder if it will put that in writing for the future. It was the New
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement
Democratic Party that chose to kick that government out of office when it brought in a budget that was the fairest to poor people in the whole decade of the 1970s. I wonder if it will put that in writing for the future.


Jean-Jacques Blais: It is not true. Why should it?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Those are the kinds of agreements that the NDP keeps.
I wish to compliment the Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), for the clarity, brevity and insight which she has provided to this Chamber today in relation to this piece of legislation. I believe that her remarks will be educational for all those who choose to read them. Their degree of understanding of what is involved here will be increased, and for that I thank the Hon. Member. She is doing an excellent job on behalf of our Party as the shadow cabinet minister in the energy portfolio.
I would also like to pay tribute to Premier Buchanan of Nova Scotia. Entering into a bargaining process with what has served as the federal Government over the last few years is never easy for provincial Premiers. Particularly when Nova Scotia is one of the smaller provinces in Confederation and must deal with that bureaucratic machine in the Department of Energy, it is a tribute to Premier Buchanan that he was able to bargain so effectively and hard on behalf of the people of his province. Having said that, I believe there is a certain amount of nervousness in this Chamber over what we are about to do. In one day we are about to approve a 100-page piece of legislation. It deals with a very complex topic, that of oil and gas.
Let me point out a couple of facts to the House. The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) entered into an agreement with the Province of Nova Scotia on March 2, 1982. It is June 28, 1984, two years and three months later. For the very first time, elected Members of Parliament are being allowed to consider whether or not that agreement is in the best interest of all Canadians and particularly those who choose to live in the Province of Nova Scotia. When was the first time we saw this legislation? It is dated May 31, 1984. Members of the House first saw it two years and two months after the agreement was reached in private between the Premier and the Prime Minister or his representative.
Members of Parliament have been put into a very awkward position. If one believes in co-operative federalism and good faith bargaining, there is no choice at this late date but to approve a contract that has already been in effect for two years and three months for all practical purposes. That is the dilemma we face today. We must approve the contract because it has existed for a long time and must be legislated in order to take effect. At the same time, however, we look forward to an early election for a change in government and a re-opening of that agreement so that it will make more sense for the future.
I come from the City of Calgary. When I was elected to this Chamber some five years ago we had one of the lowest vacancy rates in the world. We had one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. We had one of the most aggres-

June 28, 1984
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement sive and growing economies in the world. But what happened? The then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in cooperation with the then Minister of Finance, produced the National Energy Program. It was a bureaucratic nightmare. It took effect as soon as it was produced in budgetary form. The legislation respecting that program was not introduced in the House for quite some time. Members may recall that that omnibus piece of legislation was so onerous and such a denial of the basic principle of free speech and basic common sense that we rang the bells for 17 days.
That was to get that piece of legislation split into manageable parts. That was quite some time after the actual event. We did it with the certain conviction and knowledge that it was a rotten piece of legislation that would be bad for the country. Standing here in June 1984, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that that Bill is one of the worst pieces of legislation that has ever been inflicted on any nation anywhere in the free civilized world. I am speaking of the National Energy Program. That is what it was and that is what it is.
As a result of the National Energy Program the City of Calgary has seen a lot of suicides and it has a lot of people in mental hospitals. It also has a lot of unemployment. The vacancy rate in office buildings is 25 per cent and for apartment accommodation the vacancy rate is 13 per cent to 14 per cent. The unemployment rate is higher than the national average. These are the circumstances not because the people of Calgary have lost their skills, their desire, or anything else. We have those kinds of conditions because the Liberal Party of Canada in conjunction with the New Democratic Party decided it knew how to run the oil and gas industry. Surely by June 1984 it is self-evident that the Government has no business trying to run that kind of complex industry.
I have a warning for the people of Nova Scotia. Because of the insistence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) and because of the insistence of the new Leader, Mr. John Turner, who is supporting the Minister of Energy, this House is being seized with Bill C-43 today. We are going to make it law. But the motion before us does not allow the Parliament of Canada, the elected people of this country, to hear witnesses for even five minutes. It will not allow us to hear witnesses for four minutes, for three minutes, for two minutes, for one minute, not even for one second. There are 100 pages of legislation affecting the oil and gas industry. This is surely one of the most technical industries in the world today. It is one of the most competitive industries, and it is one of the really international industries in existence today. But we are not allowed as parliamentarians to take this piece of legislation to committee and to invite knowledgeable people to come before the committee so we can ask them questions and learn whether or not the ideas contained in this Bill are good or bad. That is the Government's choice, Mr. Speaker. That is Mr. Turner's choice. That is the Minister of Energy's choice. They could have arranged the world in a different way. This Party would have welcomed the opportunity to take Bill C-43 to committee. We would have liked to
have had a month or two or three to call witnesses and have them help us examine the clauses.
What is going to happen to the potential jobs and the potential income of the Province of Nova Scotia? There are parts of this Bill that talk about income sharing. The spokesperson on behalf of our Party has indicated that we are in favour of the basic pattern of that income sharing. Surely this nation is waking up to the fact that there can be no sharing without first having some income. The primary obligation that rests on all of us in this Chamber is to arrange the affairs of this nation in such a fashion that wealth is produced. If we do that well, then we have the means to help those who cannot help themselves.
If this is a bad agreement-and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are parts that give all of us much concern-then the people of Nova Scotia will be mightily disappointed. The people of Canada will also be mightily disappointed because that income sharing will not amount to anything. Let me ask you why, Sir. If you were to set out to attract an oil and gas industry to your region, why would you have a provision such as the one found in Clause 90 in this Bill that taxes the industry in that region at a higher rate than it does in other regions? Is that the kind of carrot that will attract an industry? Maybe it will. But that is a federal tax. That is the federal Government laying on an extra 5 per cent tax that is not applicable in other parts of the country.
There is another section in this Bill that deals with definitions and the implications of definitions. I believe that is found in Clause 22, if my memory serves me well. That clause deals with pipelines and with the provision that the Province of Nova Scotia is entitled to the right of first refusal to a 50 per cent ownership position in off-shore pipelines. But if you read the definition of a pipeline as closely and as carefully as you can, may I suggest to the Chair and to the Chamber, to the Premier of Nova Scotia and to the Minister of Energy, that that clause of the Bill is sufficiently unclear that it is very, very likely to end up in the courts.
Is a gas plant a pipeline? If we get an image of a pipeline in our minds we see it going through the ground and we say that this is a pipeline. A gas plant? That is a different kind of structure full of all kinds of pipes with different machines and dials. The definition in this Bill of a pipeline is sufficiently broad, in my view, that the Government of Nova Scotia has the right to first refusal of a 50 per cent ownership position in a gas plant. Is that what was intended by the Premier of Nova Scotia and the Minister of Energy? I suggest it probably was not. I suggest that if this Bill were to be subjected to the normal process that this House, that the parliamentary system, has come to put in place over years and centuries, then we could have testimony as to whether or not we have a definitional problem. If we have, if I am correct in my assessment, we could have suggested some modifications to the clause that would be designed to clear up the discrepancy and make the world a better place.
Having been born in the City of Calgary and lived there about half a century, I have been around the oil and gas
June 28, 1984

industry almost since the first day it came into operation in our region. That is close to 50 years of experience. It is a sensitive industry. It is characterized by mobility. It is a funny industry. At the exploration end of it, it takes money. Money does not respect provincial or national borders. Money is a commodity which travels relatively freely around the world. That is the first thing it takes. Second, it takes committed, dedicated and knowledgeable human beings. They are welcome around the world because they are in short supply. Third, it takes mobile equipment. An oil drilling rig is designed to dig a hole. When the digging is done, it has to be dismantled and moved. If it is on a drilling ship, it simply has to be moved. The characteristic of the required equipment is its mobility.
If we have an agreement which is unsatisfactory to those people who own and control that equipment and to the knowledgeable people who make it work, as well as to those who are willing to take a risk and invest, then it will go. It is mobile. It is easy. It leaves. When it goes, we have increased unemployment, vacancy rates in office buildings and in apartments, increased depression, suicides, heart attacks and spousal battery. Those are the consequences of economic legislation which is badly designed, ineffective and does not work.
We are living through those consequences. Federal politicians in the Liberal Party have forced those of us in the City of Calgary, in the Province of Alberta, to live through those consequences. I do not want that for the people of Nova Scotia. They deserve better. They should have better. Hopefully this agreement will produce better. However, standing in this Chamber on June 28, 1984, all I can say is that it is a hope.
If the Government had chosen to follow a decent process, to allow committee examination and to allow expert witnesses to give testimony, then all of us would have some sense of confidence about what the legislation indicated it would do, what it intended to do. That would have been better for the nation and for the people of Nova Scotia.
I look forward to the day when we have a government which values the process of seeking informed testimony from people in the country before putting in place pieces of legislation which may do a great deal of harm.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a 10-minute period for questions and comments. Are there no Hon. Members wishing to put questions?


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues who preceded me in mentioning again, because it bears mentioning, that this method of passing legislation is really an affront in many ways to the parliamentary system.
Bill C-43 is not a trivial Bill of two or three paragraphs. It is a Bill of 100 pages and some 39 clauses, many of which are technical. It flows from the agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia regarding the development of the offshore. As a responsible Party
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement
and as responsible members of that Party, obviously we do not want to wreck the agreement reached by those two levels of government acting in the best interests of their respective jurisdictions in producing an agreement which would seem reasonable and adequate. On the other hand, there is something fundamentally wrong with that kind of procedure.
Bill C-43 has been brought forward to provide a legal basis for the agreement. After its passage, it will be said that Parliament has acted, Parliament representing the people of Canada, all segments of Canada. However, at no time in this process were the people who must live with the consequences of this law afforded an opportunity to make known their concerns and observations so that we might examine the details of the law in that regard.
The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) talked about some of the problems with the definitions, for example. I did not hear all his remarks. He may well have mentioned, and probably did mention, the fact that at least six clauses in the Bill allowed ministerial discretion. That sounds like a good thing when we talk in terms of allowing flexibility to accommodate different circumstances, but it also means that there is no certainty as to what are the rules or how to plan. The offshore activities governed by this legislation and this agreement involve the expenditure of many hundreds of millions of dollars, indeed billions of dollars. It is at least unfair, probably unreasonable and very likely damaging to the prospects of investment, to produce a regime which makes it impossible for planners to know precisely what are the rules because they can be changed at any time on ministerial discretion.
We ought to have had the opportunity of examining those clauses and discussing them with the persons who have to live with them-and I am talking about industry people-to find out the consequences on their ability to operate. Will it result in costs being higher? Will it result in their having to employ more lawyers than geologists and engineers to handle the paperwork as opposed to getting on with the job of finding oil and gas?
Any number of questions could be raised. We ought to have had the opportunity to examine them, but we did not. Why? It is because the legislation was not brought forward until this week. Here we are with one day left in the session and the onus is placed upon this Party as to whether or not to allow the agreement to go ahead, with no concern about the fundamental wrongness of proceeding in this manner in the first place. This agreement was signed last year. We ought to have had the legislation debated at second reading months ago, so that we would have had the opportunity in committee, albeit Committee of the Whole, to examine the legislation clause by clause to ensure that it was workable, to ensure that the industry which has to live with it could in fact live with it and that we are not burdening it with excessive regulation, red tape, costs and so on.
It is not just the interest of the people who have to live with it that is involved. There is also the question of the develop-

June 28, 1984
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement
ment of these very important resources off Nova Scotia around the Sable Island area. That is a very important natural gas find that needs to be developed. With our dollar falling like a stone and interest rates going through the roof, the ability to produce and export that natural gas would have tremendous benefits for our dollar and the interest rates in this country and, needless to say, for the economy of the Maritimes, Nova Scotia in particular, where this development would take place. That is very important.
Because of the way the House Leader and the Government have treated this Parliament in bringing in this Bill at the last moment, we do not have an opportunity to ask those questions. We have to take it on faith that it will work. Frankly, given this Government's record on energy policy, you have to be fairly dense to take anything it produces on faith.
Since 1980, the over-all impact of this Government's energy legislation has been to drive the energy industry into the ground. It has created 25 per cent vacancies in my community of Calgary. Unemployment levels have increased from 3 per cent to 12 per cent and 13 per cent. It has bankrupted thousands and thousands of Calgarians. That has been the effect of this Government's energy program. Therefore, it hurts a lot at this point to pass more energy legislation without detailed examination to ensure that it will not have that effect on the energy sector, albeit the Nova Scotia energy sector this time.
My colleagues, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) and the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) mentioned this, but I want to mention again the question of the 25 per cent back-in provision of the national energy policy. I do not know that Members opposite appreciate yet just how costly that provision was to Canada, just what it cost us in terms of investment, both Canadian and foreign. I had a conversation with the chief economist of the Conference Board of Canada. He estimated that the National Energy Program in general, and in particular the 25 per cent back-in, cost the Canadian economy S40 billion to $50 billion, representing, generally speaking, about $20 billion of Canadian money that left Canada and $20 billion to $30 billion that did not come here.
Last summer I had the opportunity to spend the day with pension fund managers and other investment managers in Great Britain, in the City of London. We discussed the attractiveness of Canada as an area for them to invest some of their pension funds which they manage. As a rule of thumb, they tried to invest some of their money offshore for risk minimization. Historically, Canada has been a very attractive country in which to place some of that money, along with the United States, Australia and some other countries. However, as a result of the National Energy Program, and in particular the 25 per cent back-in provision which confiscated privately owned property, Canada was no longer looked upon as an attractive area to invest. A democratic country whose Government would authorize and carry through with confiscation of privately owned property without compensation is a country
governed by a Government that cannot be trusted. The atmosphere has changed incredibly.
In about 20 minutes or so, we will hear from the Bank of Canada what is happening to interest rates. We know for sure that they will go up because of the incredible pressure on the dollar. I wonder what might be happening if the National Energy Program and the 25 per cent back-in provision has not been introduced by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) when he was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in 1980. There is no doubt that we would not be witnessing this tremendous pressure to the Canadan dollar or this tremendous pressure on increasing interest rates. Incidentally, there would be several tens of thousands of Canadians currently unemployed who would be employed. That is the cost.
The new leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Turner, apparently intends to cultivate western Canada. He intends to be more open to the west, have a government that is more concerned about the west and have a government that is more responsive to the west. He puts that contention to lie immediately by apparently reappointing the Minister of Finance to that position. The Minister of Finance is the man who single-handedly devastated the economy of western Canada with the National Energy Program. He is being reappointed to the key financial post of the federal Government by a man who says that his objective is to make the west feel a part of Canada.
My suggestion is that if he wants to give my colleague from Calgary West and myself a little concern about our seats in the next election, he ought to make a public statement that under no circumstances will he allow in his government any person associated with the National Energy Program which devastated western Canada. If he made that statement, my colleague and I would have to get back to Calgary and campaign a little harder. However, it does not appear he is going to do that. He is going to reappoint the Minister of Finance, the man who single-handedly destroyed the economy of western Canada. Supposedly this is a new team that will bring the new nirvana. Well, it ain't so.
My colleague from Vancouver Centre went on record as indicating that a Progressive Conservative Government would eliminate the 25 per cent back-in provision. I want to repeat that. It is absolutely the situation. It is very high on the priority list and will occur very quickly when a new Progressive Conservative Government takes over as a signal to Canadians and the rest of the world that the Government of Canada does not confiscate private property but that it respects private property.
Other aspects of the National Energy Program that will be changed are those dealing with the question of the bureaucratic nature of the program which means that to do anything, one needs the approval of seemingly unlimited numbers of bureaucrats on this committee, that committee and the next. The whole program is full of ministerial approvals, which translates into some darn lower level bureaucrat having to approve
June 28, 1984

everything that is being done. The burden of that on any company intererested in exploring and trying to find oil and gas is absolutely horrendous. We have to get away from that.
This Party is determined to get away from that kind of interventionist hands-on bureaucratic red tape approach to an approach of providing adequate incentives, a firm and fair set of rules and instructions so that the doers, the people who are actually going to do something of value for Canada, can go out and do it on the basis of these incentives and rules, as opposed to the current system which says that if you want to do anything, you have to come to Ottawa, get on your knees and beg permission from some bureaucrat to be allowed to do it. That process is marvellous for lobbyists, lawyers and accountants. It does not do a darn thing for the people who are going to try to find the oil and gas this country needs if we are not only to achieve our goal of self-sufficiency and security of supply but also if we are going to get the benefits from this industry which the industry can provide. There is no question that the modest changes a Conservative Government intends to introduce in the beginning will put tens of thousands of Canadians back to work very quickly in this industry alone. There are many more industries about which similar things could be said.
I have one last point to make regarding a concern that goes beyond the energy question to the role of Parliament in our federal system. It is a dilemma for which I do not have the answer. On the one hand there is the question of the responsibility of parliamentarians. What is the role of Members of the House of Commons in the making of law? Do we have a duty and an obligation to examine every piece of legislation that passes through here with the kind of detail necessary so that when we vote approval, we can do so with a clear conscience in the knowledge that this is the best legislation that can be made or that we have at least had the opportunity to make suggestions which may or may not be taken up by the Government? On the other hand, there is the question of the Government of Canada and in this case the Government of Nova Scotia having reached an agreement, and those sovereign Governments having reached that agreement obviously want to get on with it.
This is related to the question of the role federal-provincial conferences play in the governing of this country. If some of the Premiers and the Prime Minister reach an agreement, does that automatically mean that Parliament ceases to have any responsibility or obligation in terms of the effects of that agreement on the jurisdictions for which the Members are responsible? This is not a new problem. It has been with us for some time. I think it is a problem that must be addressed, because I find it very frustrating to stand in the House and look at this Bill which contains 100 clauses of enormous complexity and say in all good conscience that I am confident that this is good legislation and I am prepared to vote in support of all of its details. Apparently I do not have any alternative.
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement
I did want to put that protest on the record. I think this is the wrong way to be treating Parliament. We ought to have had an opportunity to look at this legislation much earlier on so that we would not find ourselves in a rubber stamp position. On the broader question, let no one but no one in the House or in the country believe that approval of Bill C-43 in any way, shape or form means that we approve of the National Energy Program, the 25 per cent back-in feature or any of the other horrendous features of that program, some of which are unfortunately referred to in this legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a 10-minute period for questions and comments.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) puts into words that which is in the hearts of the people of the west. Those who heard the words that came out of his mouth in the last few minutes will know that that is the way 95 per cent of the people of the west feel.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre a question. The new Leader of the Liberal Party, who will apparently take over the Government of Canada on Saturday, has made two statements that I think are very much in conflict with each other. First, he stated that he wants to win the west and make the west feel a part of Canada. That is a very noble aspiration. He then said that he will make no changes whatsoever to the National Energy Program, the program that literally destroyed not only the physical works of the oil and gas industry but broke the hearts of hundreds of people who went bankrupt. I would like to ask the Hon. Member, who has a tremendous knowledge of this industry, how he thinks the people of the west will feel about being told that they will be a part of Canada when the same man tells them he will continue to subject them to all the horrors of the National Energy Program?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I do not find that the question really pertains to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). However, I will let the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre respond.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was a very probing question. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), is absolutely right in noting the conflict between winning the west and retaining the National Energy Program as well as retaining the architect of the National Energy Program as a key member of the Government of the new Leader of the Liberal Party.
A truly national Government that will understand or even try to understand the hopes, aspirations, concerns and frustrations of people in every part of the country including western Canada must understand that the impact of the National Energy Program on western Canada was absolutely devastating. It is simply not possible to suggest that one understands western Canada or wishes to understand western Canada at the same time as one believes that the National Energy Program is a good thing which will be kept in place and that

June 28, 1984
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement its architect will be kept in place as a key member of the Government. It is impossible for those two poles to come together.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) brought up the issue of the increase in the number of civil servants involved in the field of energy at the federal level. I believe that the Hon. Member was in the House in 1974 when that rapid growth in the bureaucracy started. I believe John Turner was the Finance Minister who was responsible for that rapid growth, but I am not sure because I was not here. I wonder if the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre could tell us a little bit more about that growth? Perhaps he could tell us how much the bureaucracy has grown and whether or not John Turner was responsible for that growth? Perhaps he could tell us if the slasher of Cabinet was the increaser of bureaucrats in the energy field? I would like to know from the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre whether or not that analysis is correct.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it is correct. In my talk, I did not mention, although I might have, that the new Leader of the Liberal Party was the Minister of Finance responsible for the first devastating blow to the oil and gas industry in 1974. His Budget of 1974 made provincial royalties non-deductible for tax purposes and brought the industry to a grinding, screeching halt. It resulted in hundreds of drilling rig companies leaving the country, large lay-offs and the slowdown to next to nothing of drilling activity. In fact, in that sense the Minister of Finance and the new Leader of the Liberal Party have a lot in common. They each participated in creating Budgets that devastated the oil and gas industry.
Subsequently, when trying to repair the damage created by that Budget, came the era of more bureaucratic intervention. Having first devastated the industry by his Budget of 1974, the new Leader of the Liberal Party then said that we must get the industry back on track. The way to do that, of course, was to keep adding bureaucrats who were smart enough to know what to do and who would run the industry better than the private sector, the owners of the industry, could. We know what the consequences of that have been. Proven reserves have declined steadily since then and self-sufficiency has been put further and further into the future.


Mr. Speaker:: It being two o'clock, this House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, again I rise in this House the case of my constituent who paid $1,000 on an instalment plan and then the Department of National Revenue went into his bank account and took out another $1,000 to pay the same tax bill.
The Minister admitted that his Department received the $1,000 through the Calgary branch of the Mercantile Bank of Canada on October 14, 1975. The Minister assumes that this $1,000 was sent back to the Mercantile Bank but has no record or proof of same. The President of the Mercantile Bank of Canada has stated that the bank has no record of National Revenue returning the $1,000, and neither has the Minister who assumes it was returned.
All evidence indicates that the Department of National Revenue received the $1,000 and that the $1,000 tax bill was paid twice. Revenue Canada should return the $1,000 to this new Canadian. But the Minister refuses and simply says: "The case is closed". The case is not closed.
The Department of National Revenue has either lost, misplaced, or stolen the $1,000, and I want it returned to my constituent. Is the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the new Prime Minister going to condone this misdemeanor on the part of Revenue Canada? The refusal to return the money will be tantamount to stealing $1,000 from a hard-working Canadian citizen. This case will never be closed until the Government returns the $1,000 to my constituent.



TRIBUTE TO PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Raymond Savard (Verdun-Saint Paul):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of the riding of Verdun-Saint Paul, I would like to pay tribute to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Our Prime Minister will go down in history as a great Canadian who always served his country with intelligence and dignity.
Canadians have always been proud of their Prime Minister as a worthy representative of Canada on the international scene and the man whose aim was to protect and defend minorities by enshrining the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our Constitution.
Finally, I would like to congratulate our Prime Minister on receiving the Albert Einstein peace prize.
June 28, 1984



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, at least the lackadaisical Liberals cannot be accused of forcing unemployment only on the uneducated. Canada's sickening unemployent figures are striking out at all sections of society. We find high numbers of persons presently seeking work who are classified as professionals. Unemployment figures are often considered indigenous only to the trades and the lesser educated, but this is simply not the case.
Consider that 400 of the 1,000 lawyers who were called to the bar in April are out of work. As well, 50 per cent of the graduating engineers from ten engineering schools form the ranks of the unemployed. Only 30 per cent of teachers graduating in Ontario this year will get a permanent job.
There is little comfort in knowing that the Liberal boondoggle has treated all of society with equal indifference. Only a decade ago a university education was considered a respected route toward self-sufficiency and high standing in society. Thanks to this Government it has sadly become a bad joke for thousands of young people who have dedicated most of their lives to this honourable pursuit. The graduates are outraged. Their outrage is clearly echoed throughout the ranks of the Progressive Conservative Party.



TRIBUTE TO PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to what was said by the Hon. Member for Verdun-Saint Paul. With all my constituents in the riding of Lotbiniere, I wish to join the Hon. Member in congratulating the Prime Minister on receiving the Albert Einstein Foundation's international peace prize. The prize is a tribute to the Prime Minister, in recognition of his exceptional qualities and his efforts for peace in this world.
Mr. Speaker, I have only one wish for the Prime Minister: That he wins the Nobel Peace Prize. I think that throughout the world, the Prime Minister is widely known and recognized as a great statesman and great leader. I believe that with the prize bestowed on him yesterday, the Nobel Peace Prize would be the crowning of a very brilliant career. I think he deserves to win this prize and that Canadians would be delighted if he did. That is what I wish him, now that he is about to retire as Prime Minister. I am sure all Canadians would see this nomination as something to be proud of, both for the Prime Minister and for the entire country.



PENSIONS


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the failure of Canada's private pension system is obvious from the growing dependence of elderly Canadians on the Canada Pension Plan, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and additional tax incentives proposed in the February Budget to support private savings.
Over 50 per cent of elderly Canadians are dependent on the Guaranteed Income Supplement and provincial top-ups to support CPP and private plans. Only 54 per cent of working men and 33 per cent of working women have any private pension coverage, leaving the rest dependent on the public pension system for income replacement in retirement. They face a future of poverty unless the public system is designed for adequacy of retirement income. It is presently designed to be inadequate so private plans can flourish.
The Liberal and Conservative response to the inability and unwillingness of private employers to provide pension saving opportunities is to increase tax incentives to private plan holders and virtually ignore coverage for low-income earners by rejecting mandatory pension coverage or increasing CPP benefits and contributions.
To address pension coverage and adequacy for all Canadian workers and their families seriously, we should be striving to reduce the welfare aspect of the public system by increasing the universal Old Age Security to its former prominence, increasing CPP benefits, and adapting credit splitting so that all pensioners may enjoy their own pensions and ensure retirement with security and comfort.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on June 25, 1984, an historic happening was witnessed in the annals of the Canadian Armed Forces when Mayor George Piercy of Comox, British Columbia, conferred on CFB Comox the freedom of the town at an extraordinary meeting of council. Never before has a Canadian military base with a detachment of U.S.A. military been honoured in this country with the freedom of the town.
On that day the neighbouring city of Courtenay also officially recognized Military Appreciation Week honouring CFB Comox and its squadrons and supporting staff, including its detachment of 50 United States military personnel.
The granting of the "Freedom of the City" by the civilian population to a military formation has its roots deep in history. Its honour pre-supposed very great confidence by the civilian

June 28, 1984
authorities in the integrity, goodwill and discipline of the military base people who live in their community.
It is my concern that the image of a town in the vicinity of a military establishment has been traditionally viewed as a garrison town. This image has now been dispelled. Instead, thanks to the class of soldiers and airmen enlisting in the Canadian and U.S. military today, they form a relationship with their non-military neighbours which goes well beyond the formal affiliation, and has extended to co-operation, mutual support, and friendship.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the recent debate on the Security Agency, it is apparent that Liberal Members of Parliament are not aware that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force goes far beyond the call of duty as a law enforcing agency when serving the people of Canada.
For instance, these Members of Parliament apparently are not aware that an officer of the RCMP is the chairman of a committee of interested citizens that has been formed to assist in the prevention of suicide. Several officers of the RCMP are involved with this organization, with Crime Stoppers involving local citizens, and also with the Block Parent Program. They work with young people in the prevention of crime, serving as lecturers in schools and outlining the dangers of getting involved in criminal activities. As well, they assist the Coast Guard and the Red Cross in water safety education programs.
Many people are not aware that in a city the size of Red Deer the RCMP have to deal with approximately 1,400 lost or stolen bicycles in one year. Many youngsters' tears are dried up as a result of returned bicycles.
Members of Parliament should be aware that the RCMP are of great assistance in developing good, safe, and healthy communities in Canada.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Subcommittee on the Taxation of Visual and Performing Artists and Writers issued its report. It stressed fast administrative action on tax problems between Revenue Canada and Canada's artists.
At that time, I suggested, as an urgent matter, that the Minister consider refunds for artists whose files had been re-examined four years into the past. The Minister announced yesterday that he is accepting that recommendation. His Department will initiate tax refunds to those artists who can
be identified. As well, the Department will welcome enquiries from artists in cases where their identity cannot be automatically located.
The other reactions from the Minister are equally sensitive to the arts community. He has considered the subcommittee's ideas carefully and has accepted our major principles. In addition, a conference is scheduled between Revenue Canada and artists' representatives for the autumn. These decisions are welcome news, indeed, to our artists, and are a sincere and substantial beginning to the settlement of these issues.



VISIBLE MINORITIES


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, fully 22,000 Japanese Canadians living in British Columbia were forcibly evacuated and interned by the Mackenzie King Government during the 1942-1946 period. Even after the war was over one constituent of mine, whose family had originated in Japan, was required by law to obtain a letter of approval from the Mayor of Calgary before she could move from the Taber area, to which her family had been forcibly moved, to teach in Calgary.
The attitude of the outgoing Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Col-lenette) on this issue must be reprehensible to all thoughtful Canadians. It is my firm conviction that the Mulroney Government will quickly seek an all-Party resolution regretting these events of 1942-1946.
I am delighted that my Leader was quoted in The Globe and Mail on May 16 as indicating his support for a more than symbolic sum of reparation. He said: "I feel very strongly that Canadian citizens whose rights were abused and violated and trampled upon indeed should be compensated". Our Party spokeman on multiculturalism, the Hon Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), indicated to one media outlet only yesterday that a Mulroney Government will sit down and negotiate the nature and amount of a fair settlement to Japanese Canadians soon after the coming election.



THE PRIME MINISTER


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, some 19 years ago a new phenomenon burst upon the Canadian political scene. In the short span of three years he literally catapulted from Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the iconoclast, to the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Prime Minister.
June 28, 1984

No period in Canadian history since 1867 has been so eventful and exciting. Through his efforts and leadership Canada moved from the age of puberty to national maturity. While he sometimes infuriated some Canadians and often excited many more of us, he left none of us indifferent. Many times he made us aware that "the folly of mankind is man". He also tried and succeeded in showing us that it need not be so. Of all his great achievements, none demonstrated that more than his final great effort as Prime Minister. I speak, of course, of his mission for world peace, for which he has been awarded the Albert Einstein Peace Award. It is richly deserved!
An era is coming rapidly to an end. It has been an honour and a privilege to have served under his leadership. I know he will continue to speak and work on behalf of Canada and Canadians. When his resignation is accepted by the Governor General on Saturday morning he can leave in the full and confident knowledge that, in parting, he has left very large footprints in the sands of time. "When shall we see his like again?" Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, during the Liberal leadership race the Minister of Transport lamented the fact that public servants could not attend the leadership convention. The Winnipeg Free Press has quoted the Minister as saying: "I think it is a little bit of a denial of their rights. We cannot do very much. It is the public service that makes the rules". All Hon. Members of this House, Mr. Speaker, know that that is not true. All Hon. Members of this House know that it is the Liberal Government which introduces the laws of this land, and it is the Liberal Government which is denying 300,000 federal employees the right to become involved in the next election campaign.
I would urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), and others who have lamented the fact that people could not attend the Liberal leadership convention because they are federal government employees, to remember that it is their legislation which prevents government workers from working in election campaigns and denies them a very basic right.
I urge all Hon. Members of this House to support a Private Members' Bill presented by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) which will be coming up for debate later today. This Bill would reinstate political rights for federal government employees.



TRIBUTE TO PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Robert Gourd (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, in a few days, Canada will lose a great man in the person of the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who has led this country so admirably in the last sixteen years. The people of Argenteuil-Papineau are delighted that Mr. Trudeau will have a summer home in their riding.
As the Member for the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau and on behalf of my fellow citizens, I want to welcome the Right Hon. Prime Minister and assure him that I shall always be available to settle any problems he might have with the federal Government.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, it is time that Canada Post started minding its own business. That business, of course, is delivering mail. For the price of a 32-cent postage stamp, taxpayers expect efficient delivery of the mail. That being the case, Canada Post has no right to throw more irons into the fire. The Post Office, it appears, is looking at getting into lotteries, selling insurance, and airline and travel packages. Consumer's Distributing had a brief fling with Canada Post, but it looks like the affair has gone sour.
Is it fair for this gigantic Crown corporation, which is subsidized by the taxpayer, to get involved with activities which will compete with the citizens who subsidize it? I say no, absolutely no. Canada Post and other Crown corporations should not be allowed to use facilities paid for by all taxpayers to have advantages over others.
The public purse has been abused enough, the latest example of which is the baseball pool, which we all know has struck out. It is well known that business and the private sector are able to create jobs at much less expense than Crown corporations or slush funds. Let us have less monkey business and more private business so Canadians can get back to work.

June 28, 1984
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. During the consideration of Bill C-155, the grain transportation legislation, the Government, and this Minister, promised the creation of some 375,000 jobs in Canada. Now, Mr. Speaker, rather than creating jobs, both railways are laying people off in record numbers. System employment in both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific has been reduced by 6,000 people this year over last year. Canadian Pacific, in particular, is currently engaged in a very ruthless program of eliminating operating and maintenance workers in western Canada.
This loss of jobs, Mr. Speaker, and railway investment, constitutes an outright betrayal of the railway workers and the farmers of Canada. What action is the Minister of Transport and his Government taking to ensure that the railways will live up to the commitments made with respect to this legislation? What action has the Government taken to fulfil the promise it made during consideration and debate on that Bill?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member is confusing two different sets of issues. The proposals which were put forward during the course of debate on the Western Grain Stabilization Bill indicated that the change in rates was necessary in order to provide financial leverage to enable the railways to engage in major capital expansion for the railway system in western Canada. Without going into the entire debate, we know that if the investment had not been made there would be a substantial drawback in the ability of that system to deliver grain to our international markets, which is absolutely essential to the health of the economy. I know the Conservative Party has fought against that, but we have always said it was a foolhardy and shortsighted fight, because if we in any way hamper the ability of the transportation system to deliver the goods on time, at efficient prices, then we have totally and completely undermined our international market for grain.
The railways have committed $1.1 billion this year alone into that capital expansion. The Canadian Pacific Railway, as one example, has already started its work on the Rogers Pass tunnel, the largest construction project in North America.
For the Hon. Member to say that there is no work going on and that there is a betrayal, simply shows the Hon. Member does not understand what is happening in western Canada, which is that the railways are engaged in major expansionary programs to expand our transportation system so that we can sell our grain abroad.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If there is any confusion it is in the mind of the Minister. He is obviously being bamboozled by the railroads.


EMPLOYEE LAY-OFFS-REQUEST FOR INQUIRY
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there have been job losses and further lay-offs each and every day. The railways are laying off full-time productive employees, maintenance way workers, B and B workers, railway carmen, electricians and mechanics. In the past two weeks CP issued lay-off notices for another 150 people. It is now estimated that close to 2,000 people in the operating and maintenance trades have been laid off in western Canada. It will be recalled that the Minister proposed a very elaborate advertising program costing some $3.5 million, telling the Canadian people how many job and investment opportunities there were going to be.
Because of this failure to fulfil a promise and commitment, is the Minister prepared to launch a full-scale inquiry to determine why there are job losses rather than job creation? Will he undertake to do that, rather than pussyfoot around with the railways? When will he start treating the workers first rather than the railways, as he suggested in a speech in Toronto recently?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the new found interest of the Hon. Member in transportation workers. It is too bad he did not show the same interest when he was in this job himself. The fact is we have already referred the matter of railway employment to the Senior Grain Advisory Committee, which was established to bring together all the major participants in the transportation system. The grain producers, elevator companies, railway companies, and unions are all there. That is the place where the issue will be examined. The railways have been asked to demonstrate that they are living up to their commitments. That is the mechanism we put into place to provide all participants in the western grain transportation system with an opportunity for that kind of review and examination.
If the Hon. Member does not believe in that kind of system, if he wants to go around it, if he does not trust the judgment and assessment of all the major participants in the system, it simply shows exactly who is pussyfooting and fooling around.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There is not a farmer in the West who believes you.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I certainly have faith and confidence in the judgment of the people involved in the transportation sector, but I certainly have no confidence in the chairman of this committee who happens to be the former chairman of the CNR. How can they expect an unbiased opinion from him on this very critical issue?
#

June 28, 1984


PACKING PLANT CLOSURES
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, one of the primary objectives of Bill C-155 was to encourage value added processing in western Canada, particularly in the livestock industry. This would create thousands of new jobs. It was suggested that the processing industry would be enhanced by some $350 million. When can we expect-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has some concern as to whether this is a supplementary flowing from the answer to the previous question, which is the usual requirement for a supplementary.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, if you would hear me out you will find that it is directly related to jobs supposed to have been created under Bill C-155.
Since the passage of that Bill two packing plants in Alberta, Canada Packers and Burns, have closed their operations, with the loss of 1,000 jobs. I ask the Minister when western Canadians can expect the Government to fulfil its commitment to increase jobs in the livestock processing industry? When are these things going to become a reality?


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, the Chair again expresses concern about lengthy questions followed by lengthy answers. Again, there are a number of people on the Hon. Member's side seeking to be recognized.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to express my concern about the accuracy of the Hon. Member's questions. In his very lengthy preamble he stated that the chairman of the Senior Grain Advisory Committee is a former head of the CNR. He is dead wrong. The chairman of that committee is Mr. Murray Cormack, a very distinguished member of the grain producing industry in western Canada. He is the chairman; not the former head of the CNR. I suggest that the lack of information and knowledge on the part of the Hon. Member in that one instance is illustrative of his total lack of knowledge of the entire area.


EXPORT PRICE OF NATURAL GAS
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy I will direct my question to the Minister of Finance. He will know that the quickest way to support the Canadian dollar without raising interest rates is to sell more natural gas to the U.S. The Government's decision to stick with a single border price is creating hardship for the West, particularly for natural gas processors in an industry where employment has fallen by 50 per cent. Since a more flexible natural gas pricing system would earn billions of dollars in export sales, help the Canadian dollar, and create new jobs, why does the Government insist on staying with an obsolete pricing system? Is the Minister working with his colleague, the Minister of Energy, to ensure that there is a
Oral Questions
more equitable and economically efficient way of selling our resources?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know better. First of all, the price of natural gas was established after extensive consultations with the industry and the producing provinces. The arrangement arrived at represents the point of view of the industry and the provinces concerned, as well as of the federal Government. It was arrived at in agreement with the American authorities.
Obviously the Department of Energy and the Department of Finance are always examining and reviewing the situation, and are open to representations from anyone with views on how we could improve or expand our exports. But surely the Hon. Member cannot assume that just reducing the price would increase the revenue. You might be able to increase sales a little bit, but if you cut the price by half and increase sales volume by only 25 per cent, you end up with less money than you had before, not more. That is not going to help the Canadian dollar, or Canadians. It will only help Americans who would be able to buy Canadian gas at a very cheap rate, without the Canadian industry or people getting more benefits. As a matter of fact they would end up selling their heritage at a lower price than they are getting at the present time, with a lower total revenue. The Hon. lady's recommendation is one that she should examine much further.


Pat Carney: The Minister's answer indicates why the Government is so totally out of touch with economic reality. He must be the only person in the country who believes the single border price for natural gas is not obsolete. Everyone else doesn't.


CANADIAN OWNERSHIP CHARGE
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, dealing with obsolete taxes and prices, I would like to deal with the Canadian ownership charge imposed by the Government three years ago to pay for Petrofina. That has long since been paid for, yet the Government continues to pile up about $800 million in this account, and another $900 million next year. Since the Government has not brought forward the legislation which will terminate this account, and since Petro-Canada is offering cash discounts amounting to 16 cents a gallon on gasoline, is it the intention of the Government to return this money to the consumer, not through Parliament but through Petro-Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the main obsolete feature in this House certainly has to be the view of the Hon. Member of the situation of natural gas. The price of natural gas was determined in full consultation and with the full agreement of the industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Is it the Conservative Party's view that they are going to establish this independently of the views of the producers and producing provinces? That is not the view of

June 28, 1984
Oral Questions
this Government, and that is not the policy followed by the Minister of Energy, nor is it the policy we are going to follow. We are going to continue a policy of consultation with the provincial Governments and the industry, and make changes once they have been considered appropriate by all concerned.
As far as the question raised by the Hon. Member is concerned, she knows the tax to which she referred is going to be assigned for energy purposes in Canada, and steps have already been announced in the Budget in that regard.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Just about three months ago we had a major increase in interest rates. Then I pointed out to the Minister that we were going through a bad old movie, which has since become a tragic movie in its impact on the people of Canada. The Minister said on March 15: "We have forecast a decline in interest rates between now and the end of the year." I point out that, since he said that, interest rates have gone in one direction and one direction only, that is up. Today they went up by almost a half a percentage point. The 2 per cent increase in interest rates which has taken place in the last 60 days has cost the typical home owner $24,000 on a mortgage. It has cost Canadian business over $2 billion in interest rate cost increases. When is this madness going to stop?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member deplores the increase in interest rates. He will certainly not be alone in that regard. This is generally deplored, not only in Canada but in the developing world and among industrial countries. If he looks at the European countries, or other countries around the world, he will find very serious and strenuous objections to the fact that interest rates are going up at the present time, fundamentally because of what is happening in the United States. For instance, interest rates have gone up a half a percentage point in Austria and Germany in the last day. They have gone up a full point in Sweden, and there are similar increases taking place in a number of other countries. The Hon. Member knows the tragic impact of these developments on developing countries also, and debtor countries in particular.
The issue is obviously related to what is happening in the United States. Strong representations have been made to the Government of the United States by other industrial countries as well as developing countries. We hope that steps will be taken, particularly in the United States, to reverse that particular trend which we all regret and certainly cannot support.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I point out that the people of Canada have some interest in what the Government of the United States is doing in this issue. However, they have
particular interest in the actions of the Government of Canada on interest rates rather than in what other people are doing.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACT
John Edward Broadbent: We have made a proposal which we think could be effective in at least curtailing the rate of interest rate increases. The Government discarded that. Farmers, business people, and home owners are suffering. Is it the Government's intention merely to sit back and watch what happens, and allow interest rates to rise to the 20 per cent plus area again, or is the Government going to take some kind of action sometime soon to stop these increases?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we have heard rhetoric rather than proposals from the NDP. I indicated to them that I had examined carefully the suggestion they made, upon which they did not elaborate. I indicated to them that it was filled with counterproductive elements-


An Hon. Member:: Like what?


Marc Lalonde: -which would make it a very ineffective and counterproductive proposal.
With regard to whether we would sit and do nothing, I want to remind my friend that the last time interest rates went up the Government took a number of steps to help farmers and home owners.


An Hon. Member:: What?


Marc Lalonde: Now they ask what. The NDP do not even remember what took place over the last two years.


John Edward Broadbent: Bankruptcies, that is what.


Marc Lalonde: I will tell you what is happening now. If you want to buy a house now you can open up a $10,000 RHOSP which is income tax deductible. That means that you can save several thousands of dollars on the purchase of a house at the present time. That program is available at the present time for people who want to buy homes. We have come up with a mortgage interest rate proposal which we had to drag the NDP, kicking and screaming, into approving. That is going to provide support and help for people who have loans at the present time when they must renew their mortgages.


Rodney Edward Murphy: More for the banks.


Marc Lalonde: These are only two among many steps which we have taken. There are a number of programs of the ministry of housing which are helping people at low income levels in terms of social housing. The Hon. Member knows, or should know, that.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the Minister that it was not only the NDP but the business people involved in the mortgages who pointed out that they could not recommend to the people of Canada the proposal made by the Government. It was totally useless.

|



June 28, 1984


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE SPECULATORS' TAX
John Edward Broadbent: I would like to return to the one concrete proposal which was made in the House. It certainly was not made by the Conservatives who have talked on both sides of this issue, as they have on every other. Will the Minister tell us why he is not prepared to put a special tax on large amounts of money invested outside Canada by speculators who want to take advantage of a national economic crisis? Why does he not put on such a tax to try to deter the outflow of capital, so that we can keep interest rates down for the people of Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the NDP was not telling the truth-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: -when he said that the construction industry was opposed to the mortgage rate proposal plan. I want to remind him that every organization, from the Consumers' Association to the housing organizations and the construction association, gave their full support to the mortgage rate proposal program.


Ian Deans: That is not true.


Marc Lalonde: If he had been in the House and followed the issue he would have known the degree of support which that Bill had.


Ian Deans: That is not true.


Marc Lalonde: It had very large and broad support. The fact is that that is what ended up pushing the NDP into allowing the Bill to go through.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: They realized they were alone out there against that Bill.
With regard to the other question, I answered it at length while the Hon. Member was visiting throughout the country in the last two weeks. I invite him to read Hansard.


INCREASE IN BANK OF CANADA RATE
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. There was a major increase in the Bank of Canada rate to 12.36 per cent today. In other words, Governor Bouey is carrying out the intention which he expressed in his speech in Charlottetown that the Minister approved yesterday. This will cause the fourth round of increases in interest rates in Canada in the last three or four months.
Output in Canada has barely reached its level of three years ago before the recession began. In view of the fact, how can the Minister justify allowing this increase in the Bank of
Oral Questions
Canada rate, and the subsequent increases we will experience in interest rates at this time? This will bring on the recession which we are just steps away from right now.


Marc Lalonde: The best answer I could give to the Hon. Member would be to quote his statement of November 16, 1979 when he said: "Canada, quite literally, has no alternative to a temporary regime of higher interest rates." He should go back and read his own stuff.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has been there for four years and three months. That is not temporary. He has had lots of time to do something about the mess the Liberal Government left behind in 1980. The Leader of the unofficial Opposition puts the Liberal Government in, and then all he does is complain about the Liberal Government he has put in.


SALES TAX INCREASE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Carnell Crosbie: In addition to the increase in interest rates which is now going to go forward, the Minister has a tax increase going forward for Canadian consumers on October 1. In the next three years the Government is going to take $2.4 billion from Canadian consumers through the new special recovery tax, a 1 per cent increase in the sales tax. This year the government will take $300 million. How can the Minister justify these increased taxes on Canadian consumers whom he is crucifying with increased interest rates at the same time? How can he justify that, the unemployment it will bring, and the recession which will follow it?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, that question has been asked many times and I have answered it. I am afraid the Member must have been outside the House at that time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A delegation from the Canadian section of the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association met recently in Washington with the two Senators from the State of Alaska and the two Senators from the State of Washington, to discuss the stalled West Coast salmon treaty negotiations. One of the recommendations of the Canadian group was to have the Minister appoint a personal representative, just as the United States Secretary of State has appointed a personal representative. Would the Minister indicate whether or not he will accept this recommendation and if, in fact, he has appointed a personal representative to fulfil these duties?

June 28, 1984
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, at the last meeting which I held with Secretary Shultz, the question of the Pacific salmon negotiations was fully discussed. At that time I made the suggestion that we ought to take some new steps and inject some renewed impulse into the negotiations, and raised the idea of representatives along the lines mentioned by the Hon. Member.
Since that time Mr. Shultz has appointed a personal representative and I have asked the Hon. Mitchell Sharp to act as the representative of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Mr. Sharp has accepted. I think that he is particularly qualified to act in this capacity because, through his experience as the Northern Gas Pipeline Commissioner, he has established a personal relationship with quite a number of the persons who will be involved in this negotiation.
I make particular reference to the Senators to whom the Hon. Member has referred, because without their co-operation I doubt whether it will ever be possible for Canada to reach an agreement. We have been very close to an agreement from time to time, but in each case we have had to draw back because of some new element that was injected into the talks mainly by one State or the other, in the person of one of the Senators.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. According to a report published recently by the Canadian Congress on Learning Opportunities for Women, the female share of skill training places in the Canada Manpower Training Program has fallen from 39 per cent in 1981-82 to only 29 per cent in 1983-84. As the Minister knows, women constitute 40 per cent of the Canadian labour force. Will the Minister explain this shocking situation which has developed since the introduction of the National Training Act in 1982? Did she and her officials see this coming?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I too am disturbed by the statistics. However, I must point out that it is not because there has been a decline in the availability but that there has been a decline in the demand. We had very serious discussions with the provincial Ministers responsible, regarding this decline in demand. We are looking into the matter more thoroughly at the moment.


Walter Franklin McLean: The Minister must know that the data suggest that this is a profound neglect on the part of her Government toward the women of Canada.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, rather than blaming the provinces, as the Minister responsible what representations has she made to the Minister of Employment and Immigration in regard to this discrimination against women in the workplace?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, again I think the Hon. Member has his facts mixed up, because we have increased the number of places available to women. The demand has not kept up with what is available to these people. It is of great concern to me, because it is important that women go in for retraining, particularly in those jobs which offer them non-traditional occupations. I repeat that those spaces are there. We have, through Employment and Immigration, increased the number of spaces available to them through the training programs.


Walter Franklin McLean: What have you done about daycare?


Judith A. Erola: It is the demand that is simply not there. I was suggesting to the Ministers responsible, and to the Ministers of Education, that we do a better job of explaining to these women that they must take advantage of these spaces and these training programs, and that we must have a greater program of public awareness-


Walter Franklin McLean: It is all the women's fault, is it?


Judith A. Erola: -to make sure that they do take advantage of those seats.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, who has left. I do not blame him a bit for leaving. I will redirect my question to the Minister of Finance, who will know that, as a result of the interest rate changes over the last three months, the cost to business in Canada has increased in excess of $2 billion. He will also know that as a result of these changes the level of bankruptcies will increase, the level of receiverships will increase, and the number of people simply walking away from their businesses will increase.
The Minister of Finance will be able to walk down the main street of Canada and see it boarded up in the next number of weeks as a result of his high interest rate policy. He knows full well that the situation will get significantly worse as a result of these high interest rates. In light of this evidence, what does he plan to do to assist the small business sector?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we have introduced a number of measures to help the small business sector. The Hon. Member is aware of those that were
June 28, 1984

contained in the Budget of last year, which meant several hundreds of millions of dollars of tax advantage to small business. Just now, there is before the House an Income Tax Act Bill-


Mr. McKnight:: Where is it?


Marc Lalonde: It is before the House. We are in negotiations with the Conservatives to get it passed. The problem is that the critic of the Conservative Party cannot make up his mind whether he is ready to support this Bill or not. The fact is that there is a Bill before the House right now that will mean tax simplification for small business, which will mean a tax reduction of $150 million for small business this year. But what do we see? We see the Tories divided amongst themselves and unable to make up their minds. I hope they will put pressure on their spokesmen and make sure that the Conservatives will support the measure that the NDP and the Liberal Party are ready to pass today or tomorrow, if the Conservatives want to co-operate. This will mean help for small business in this country. Please get together and co-operate, and we will be able to get this for small business.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I want the Minister of Finance to leave us out of this family dispute that they are having. He knows full well that we have been ready to discuss that legislation for weeks and weeks.


SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BOND PROGRAM
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism who will know that the cost for small business has increased nearly $2 billion as a result of increased interest rates over the last three months. The Minister says he is interested and concerned about small business. He took away the Small Business Development Bond. What does he plan to do-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is raising another question on a supplementary.


John Edward Broadbent: It is the same one.


Mr. Speaker:: There are many Hon. Members seeking to be recognized. We will let it go, but we must have some rules on supplementaries.


Hon. David Smith (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has forgotten some of the other things that this Government does for small business. Of course the figures just came out this week that last year we had a record year in providing loans through the Small Businesses Loans Act because of the support and the commitment of this Government.
Oral Questions SUPPLY AND SERVICES


AWARDING OF CANADA DAY FIREWORKS CONTRACT
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. It concerns the awarding of contracts for Canada Day fireworks displays.
Of the two companies that submitted tenders, two-thirds of the total contract was awarded to Amplemen of Montreal, which is a company that imports its fireworks. Hands Fireworks of Ottawa, which manufactures its product, has been forced to lay off production workers as a result of this action. Both bids were well within 2 per cent of each other. So much for the Government's buy Canadian policy.
Why was consideration not given to awarding the contract to a firm that manufactures its product here in Canada? Obviously the Government has a greater preoccupation with paying out political patronage than with saving Canadian jobs and using Canadian products to celebrate Canada's birthday.


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, instead of talking nonsense, the Hon. Member would be well advised to find out exactly how contracts are managed in Canada. The Department of Supply and Services awards 360,000 contracts annually. If the Hon. Member had had the courtesy to give me notice of her question, I would have had the requisite information, which I would then have made available to the Hon. Member. However, I will now have to check before I can give further details. As far as Canadian content is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is one of the criteria that is always considered when we evaluate contracts. However, we always try to get the best products for the best value, so that Canadian taxpayers will get their money's worth.


TEST SAMPLING OF FIREWORKS
Jennifer Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister if he will also conduct an immediate investigation into all the reasons why the majority of the contract was awarded to Ampleman. On April 17 his departmental officials were advised that a random sampling of the Ampleman product showed that the shells were only partially filled with pyrotechnic composition. The remainder contained rice hulls, bits of paper, and other stuffing which fill the shells at no cost. In other words, officials at Supply and Services, with full knowledge of this information which, in effect, constitutes possible fraud, award the contract to Ampleman, resulting in lost Canadian jobs. The Canadian taxpayer is paying for fireworks displays, not rice krispies.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is very fond of rice

June 28, 1984
Oral Questions
krispies, but I think she should be more careful about referring to the possibility of fraud. I think she is using very tendentious terms. As I said in my first reply, I shall make the necessary inquiries and as soon as I have the information, I shall pass it on to the Hon. Member.


INDUSTRY
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the congenial Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Yesterday he announced his plans for a great new Shop Canadian program which will ask Canadians to compare products and buy Canadian where possible. The day before yesterday the Minister received a telex from Wabco Limited of Stoney Creek, Ontario. In it, I believe Wabco Limited asked for a review of the recently awarded contract given to New York Airbrake for 50 per cent of the brakes for wheat cars bought by the Canadian Wheat Board. What does the Minister intend to do about this request in light of the fact that the Canadian content of the New York Airbrake parts does not even approach that of Wabco's, and the price differential on this order was only 3.5 per cent?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, when I received the telex I undertook to inquire why the decision was made to buy the vehicle with the component parts as indicated. I have not yet had a response.


EFFECT OF AWARDING CONTRACT TO UNITED STATES COMPANY
William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question was to be for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, because I am told he as well received a telex from Wabco. However, I shall direct my question to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion again. Considering the fact that awarding 50 per cent of a contract to a firm based in the United States will cause the loss of 150 jobs immediately, and more in the future, what does the Minister propose to do in response to the telex he received? I trust the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion will speak to the Minister of Employment and Immigration about this. Surely the Minister of Employment cannot stand by, nor can the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, and see that number of Canadian jobs disappear?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I will make representation to my colleague as requested by the Hon. Member. But first I must get the facts to find out whether the Canadian company was competitive. I made it very clear in the announcement yesterday that in the "Think Canadian" campaign we were not saying "buy Canadian at any price". One of the most important aspects to
create jobs in this country is that we have to be competitive in quality, price, service, and all the other facts that dictate why consumers buy, whether they are industrial purchasers or individuals.


HOUSING
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I was looking for the Minister of Finance, but if he is not available I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. It is now clear that mortgage interest rates simply cannot be tied to the normal interest rate flow. As a result of the increases that have taken place in mortgage interest rates since February, 100,000 Canadians are in a position where they cannot enter the housing market as purchasers. Will the Minister of Finance take into consideration that it is quite well within the area of responsibility of the Government of Canada to establish a separate and independent mortgage providing agency? Will he move now to eliminate the tie between normal interest rates which fluctuate daily, weekly, monthly, normally going up, and mortgage interest rates, in order that Canadian families can afford to buy homes?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that there is a plan available at the present providing for tax assisted home ownership. That was provided under the last Budget. Canadians who want to buy homes can use the establishment of a registered home ownership scheme whereby they will get substantial benefit if they want to get a tax advantage coming from this particular development.
The Hon. Member knows that we have also passed a mortgage rate protection plan which is going to ensure that if interest rates rise by more than 2 per cent from the time a mortgage is taken out to the time it is renewed, there will be protection over that 2 per cent increase for the same length of time as the first mortgage was taken. We have already taken these steps, and if additional steps are going to be needed, they would be announced in due time.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows full well that the mortgage insurance plan offered by the Government was criticized severely by the Canadian Real Estate Association and by the Canadian Consumers' Association. In both cases they said they could not recommend the plan to anyone.


MORTGAGE PROTECTION PLAN
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. Given that he knows people who already own a home and already have a mortgage cannot take advantage of the Registered Home Ownership Plan provisions-there is no point in it for them-and given that they are going to be affected now by the
June 28, 1984

escalating interest rates, to the detriment not only of those home owners but also of the people who would normally build the homes that would be purchased in Canada, will the Government not now recognize that mortgage protection is necessary and that a mortgage plan must be introduced in Canada, independent of all other funding arrangements for other purchasing?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the beauty of being in the New Democratic Party is that you can propose all kinds of expenditures and never have to account for the financing of them. There they are proposing another scheme that would mean significant expenditures for the federal Government. I remind my friend that we already have a $30 billion deficit in this country, and that every NDP member who rises wants the Government to spend more and more. I would be able to take the representations from that Party more seriously if New Democrats would be a little more responsible, indicate how they would finance all their activities, and indicate what kind of a Budget they would present. But thank God they will never have such a problem, the problem of presenting a Budget for this country.


INCOME TAX ACT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, who has seriously misled the House and the country with respect to the so-called provisions of the Income Tax Bill which, as he knows, have not yet been tabled on the floor of the House of Commons. How can the Minister ask this Parliament and its Members, when we have been calling for the introduction of this legislation consistently from the time of the last Budget, when the Minister did not even have the draft legislation ready until the end of May and when it was finally, because of this Party, brought before the committee for a preliminary look to deal with this legislation at this point? Will the Minister not admit that the reason this legislation has not now been passed by this Parliament is because of the incompetence of the Minister of Finance, the incompetence of this Government, and the incompetence of the House Leader of the Liberal Party?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for his efforts at-


Mr. Trudeau:: Obfuscation.


Marc Lalonde: -obfuscation and sloughing over the serious divisions inside his own Party. This Bill has been produced in draft form, as he indicated, many weeks ago, referred to a parliamentary committee-


Mr. Epp:: Where is the Bill?


Marc Lalonde: -and has been endorsed by the parliamentary committee. The ways and means motion has been tabled in
Oral Questions
this House. The spokesman for the Conservative Party has had the Bill in his hands for the last while-


An Hon. Member:: Where is the Bill?


Marc Lalonde: -and the Conservatives-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Finance has the floor.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It hurts over there to hear the truth.


Marc Lalonde: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. The Conservatives do not want to hear the truth. The fact is the Liberals are the Government. We and the NDP are ready to pass this Bill, today or tomorrow, with one speaker.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Where is the Bill?


Marc Lalonde: That Bill means hundreds of millions of dollars of help for the farmers and for the small businessmen, and it means simplification of the tax system. It means many other benefits and advantages to Canadians. At least there are two Parties in the House which have the interest of Canadians at heart. I hope the Conservatives will muster their courage, get together a little, talk with their spokesman and ensure that the Bill is passed before we adjourn.


Some Hon. Members:: Where is the Bill?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We know that the Liberals and NDP Members are very cozy. They will be able to work together even more closely after the next election, in the Opposition, because that is where they will be.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POSITION OF PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, why has the Minister of Finance not yet brought the Bill forward for introduction? I have not heard one word from the Government House Leader with respect to this legislation. The Minister of Finance misleads the House, because he knows that we are and have been prepared to give the income tax provision expeditious treatment. However, I can tell the Minister right now that when it comes down to one speaker per Party, he is dreaming in technicolour.
Will the Minister at least bring forward the Bill, or introduce it at the appropriate time? We will have a look at it. I am meeting with the Government House Leader at four o'clock this afternoon. Perhaps we could discuss whether we have enough time to deal with the matter, but it will not be on the basis of one speaker per Party. We in this Party do not operate in that way.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

June 28, 1984
Privilege-Mr. Clarke


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, that is the trouble with the Conservatives. They cannot operate on the basis of an agreed policy. They will want to have 35 speakers who will say different things. This is not new. This has been their record over the last four years. They cannot make up their minds on anything. They cannot agree. The Bill is there. We are ready to proceed. If the Conservatives want to proceed with it, that is fine.


Mr. Dick:: Table the Bill.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Where is the Bill?


Marc Lalonde: If not, Canadians will know whom to blame when the next election comes. Because small businessmen and farmers will not have had the benefits to which they are entitled, they will blame the Tories.


PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the table the financial statements of the Parliamentary Restaurant, together with the Auditor General's report, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1984.


RECEPTION IN ROOM 16
Mr. Speaker:: This might be an appropriate time to extend an invitation to all Hon. Members and the Press to join me in Room 16 later this evening. In view of the possibility that tomorrow there would not be as many Hon. Members present, I thought I might have the traditional Speaker's reception this evening. I hope to see a number of you present, if not all of you.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, as Your Honour will know, this is the first time I have had an opportunity since last Friday, when I raised the question of privilege concerning the language used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in response to my question on that day-


Mr. Speaker:: The matter raised by the Hon. Member on Friday related to alleged unparliamentary language. The Chair found at that time that there was no unparliamentary
language. An examination of the "blues" has substantiated the opinion of the Chair.
Is the Hon. Member rising on another matter?


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that the Chair had made a decision. I understood that both the Chair and I were to wait until-


Mr. Speaker:: No. A question was raised concerning the use of the word "fabrication", whether or not it was unparliamentary. The Chair made very clear that the frequency of usage of that term where it had not been deemed unparliamentary rendered the Chair in a position of not being able to recognize this instance as being an unparliamentary one.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, June 27, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my exchange with the Minister of Finance during Oral Questions, there will be a meeting of House Leaders at four o'clock this afternoon. I simply say to the Government House Leader that, in that we carry on negotiations with respect to Government business, it alarms me when a Cabinet Minister rises and makes reference to supposed arrangements which have been entered into. As the Government House Leader knows, there has been no consultation whatsoever with me as House Leader of the Official Opposition. Putting all that aside, I know that in the last and dying days of this Parliament the Minister of Finance is probably concerned about his future in Cabinet.
I bring to the attention of the Government House Leader some items of business which we may be able to introduce today, with the idea of discussing them for the purpose of making some progress. There has been much discussion about the Bill to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. The Minister of Agriculture indicated publicly to a number of groups that he wanted this Bill tabled in the House. In light of the fact we are reaching the end of this trimester, as evidenced by the Speaker's invitation to Room 16 at the end of the day, is there any possibility of that Bill being tabled today for first reading? We are certainly prepared to give unanimous consent for that Bill to be tabled, if there is any difficulty with respect to bringing it forward.


Yvon Pinard: What Bill?
June 28, 1984


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The proposed Bill to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act.


Yvon Pinard: It is included.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: All right, it will be tabled today. Also I should like to mention to the Government House Leader the Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors which deal with matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada. Traditionally that Bill could be passed. I know the draft Bill has been received by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It has received its approval and the necessary assurances have been given by Government officials with respect to it. As far as I am concerned, that Bill could go through without debate if the Government House Leader is able to table it for first, second and third readings and disposition. I would be prepared to do that immediately.
In terms of the other items with which we can deal, such as proceeding expeditiously with Bill C-50, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, I think the Government House Leader will find that we are prepared to deal with them. I am prepared as well, as usual, to see how much business we can get through before the end of this trimester.
Could the Government House Leader give us a report with respect to the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and the anomalies Bill to which I have referred? We will carry on discussions at four o'clock today.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I must confess shock and dismay at the actions of the Official Opposition House Leader, given that when I rose not a month ago to ask a question which I felt was necessary he dressed me down for having attempted to negotiate on the floor of the House. I must say to him that I find his action today, in light of his comments on that day, reprehensible.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I think I am making progress. I feel a lot better now.


Ian Deans: Since the matter has been raised, the Government House Leader knows full well from private discussions which I have had with him that we were prepared to pass immediately the section of the Bill relating to the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act which deals with the request of tobacco farmers for the right to establish an orderly marketing procedure, if it could be separated from the balance of the Bill.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: We believe the balance of the Bill requires some further consideration and hearings. However, I am prepared to make my representations on the other items at the House Leaders' meeting in 50 minutes.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West would like sugar in his coffee at four o'clock.
Business of the House


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as the Government House Leader knows, I do not take sugar; I am sweet enough as it is.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: When I hear the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain say that anything I do is reprehensible, I know I am on the right track, because this man has no judgment.
I am prepared to discuss matters in confidence, but when the Minister of Finance rises in his place and suggests that there have been negotiations in terms of legislation passing when in fact there have not been, I have to rise and ensure that the record is clear.
I have no problem with the Government House Leader in terms of the way in which negotiations have been carried on. I think we have made great progress. I look forward to black coffee and to his putting a collar around the Minister of Finance so that he does not make statements which cause me to stand in my place to repudiate them.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly let this statement pass. A little earlier, towards the end of oral question period, when I was not in my seat and the Hon. Member probably thought I was not in the House, he said that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) had acted improperly and that the Government House Leader was not any good. Now he says that everything is fine, that we reached an agreement, that I am very good, and that the coffee in my office is excellent. I wish he would make up his mind. I am at my seat, and I am willing to negotiate in good faith and to continue to do so, but I do not think it is proper to reproach the Minister of Finance for his action regarding the Bill on amendments to the Income Tax Act.
In the House it is common practice that Ministers with bills to table in the House discuss them with the respective critics in the two Opposition Parties. The Income Tax Act, that's it. The Minister of Finance consulted me yesterday and asked whether he could send a copy of the Bill to his Finance critics on the opposite side of the House. The Minister confirmed that he sent a copy of the Bill to the Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). He also sent a copy to one of the Members of the New Democratic Party. I think that is the polite thing to do and that the Minister of Finance is to be congratulated on his attitude and the way he acted. If the Opposition is really in good faith in this instance- They could have had knowledge of the Bill. The Notice of Ways and Means appearing on the Order Paper is basically what the Bill contains. Hon. Members are familiar with the procedure, as is my hon. friend.
In the circumstances, the Hon. Member is wrong to criticize the Minister of Finance. The Minister is extremely competent and has done wonders at a time when the economy was in great difficulty. His 6 and 5 policy and his other policies have been very successful in this country, and the Hon. Member should be glad that the Minister, in spite of his success, is not

June 28, 1984
Business of the House
easily influenced and has remained very close to the people and to the Members of the Opposition, and that he decided to trust them and submit bills to them prior to tabling them in the House, something he did again only recently.
Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual for the Minister of Finance to negotiate directly with his parliamentary critics. This is common practice. If these negotiations prove to be successful, forty-five minutes from now the Hon. Member, who is Parliamentary House Leader for the Progressive Conservative Party (Mr. Hnatyshyn) will have a chance to agree on a limited debate tomorrow to adopt this Bill. If there is no agreement, the Bill will be considered in the fall when the House sits again.
But I certainly do not want to hear any complaints about not being consulted. The Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party have both been advised of the details of this Bill. All they have to do is tell us that they agree to a short debate. When the Hon. Member says that, to him, only one speaker per party on a Bill of this kind is unacceptable, I can understand he is not happy about having only one speaker, but, even if we had three or four speakers, we could keep debate within reasonable limits so that we could adopt the Bill in time for Royal Assent to be given before the House adjourns for the summer.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that the Hon. Member was wrong to criticize the Minister of Finance. The Minister's approach to these things has always been exemplary, and if the Hon. Member is really prepared to act in good faith, we can reach an agreement on this Bill, which has already been sent to his Party, this afternoon at the Parliamentary House Leaders' meeting.
As for the Bill about archaisms to which the Hon. Member referred, we shall probably have time to introduce the Bill and proceed, I hope I make myself clear, to adoption without debate.


Mr. Gamble:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning House business. The Government House Leader said, and I wrote down his words, "Members opposite have had access to the Bill". I am a Member opposite and I have not had access to the Bill. We are talking about an amendment to the Income Tax Act. Quite frankly-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is engaging in debate. That is not a point of order. The matter has been raised by the House Leader for his Party and there has been a very explicit exchange on this subject.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member is raising the same point, there has been a very explicit exchange between the House Leader for the Hon. Member's Party and the Minister of
Finance on the subject on which he is apparently touching. Does he have something new to add? At the moment the Chair fails to see how privilege is involved. If the Hon. Member has a point of privilege, we will hear it.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue which is fundamental to my being in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Bye, bye.


John Albert Gamble: If there is anything that strikes at the privilege of a Member, it is the denial of an opportunity to read a piece of complex legislation which is about to be introduced by the Government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a point of order, nor is it privilege. There has been a very explicit statement by the Minister of measures taken to date. There has been a question directly on the point and repeated with supplementaries from the House Leader of the Hon. Member's Party. In the circumstances, the Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis).



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For the above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting two petitions today, one signed by a number of residents of the Kamloops-Shuswap area who are concerned about the MAT-TV systems that are operating within the licensed area of a legitimate cable firm in the Kamloops area. The undersigned employees of Kamloops Cable Net hereby petition the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) to enforce the above mentioned Act, namely Section 29.3 of the Broadcasting Act.
MR. RIIS-CANADA POST/CONSUMERS DISTRIBUTING


Nelson Andrew Riis: jewellers in the Kamloops area a concern that they have regarding Canada Post becoming a partner with Consumers Distributing and really not carrying out the business of the Canada Post mandate, namely to deliver mail. They are concerned that by entering into an arrangement between Canada Post and Consumers Distributing it would be creating unfair competition for local independent retailers who pay heavily to operate their own shops, while Consumers Distributing is able to use taxpayer-financed buildings as well as taxpayer-paid employees.
[ Translation]


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table petitions signed by some 500 individuals, including 150 residents of Nova Scotia and 350 residents of the riding of Laurier and the Montreal area. These are in addition to the 1,200 individuals who signed the petitions I tabled on April 18 of this year.
The petitioners are encouraged by the efforts of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to promote a dialogue between the super powers, and they ask that Parliament support the Prime Minister in those efforts.
These petitions are particularly appropriate today, now that the House has just adopted the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security Act-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not entitled to make a speech at this time.


David Berger: To finish what I was saying, now that the Albert Einstein Foundation has awarded its international peace prize to the Prime Minister, we can say it was ordinary citizens like those who signed this petition who awakened the conscience of Parliament and the Members of this House.

mr. Mcknight-mail delivery to adanac, sask.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition to the House by the undersigned residents of the Adanac area in my constituency in the Province of Saskatchewan. The undersigned are strongly protesting the decision by Canada Post to terminate rural mail delivery to the residents of Adanac. The residents of Adanac pay the same number of cents per stamp as anyone else in Canada and at times will have to travel up to 35 miles to secure mail. That does not strike me as being equitable for the people of my area.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a large number of petitions on
Introduction of Bills
the issue of redress to Canadians of Japanese origin for injustices during World War II and afterwards. I will group these petitions which contain hundreds of signatures of people from all over Toronto and a few from people from other parts of Canada.
One of the petitions states that the National Association of Japanese-Canadians seek official acknowledgement from the Canadian Government of the injustices committed against Japanese-Canadians during and after World War II. Whereas the internment, exclusion and exiling of Japanese-Canadians violated individual human rights and freedoms and destroyed the fabric of the community, the National Association of Japanese-Canadians seeks redress in the form of compensation. Moreover, the National Association of Japanese-Canadians seeks a review and amendment to the War Measures Act and relevant sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that no Canadian will ever again be subjected to such wrongs.
Further, I have a petition signed mainly by persons who are not Japanese-Canadians who state that they support Japanese-Canadians in their democratic process and in their redress efforts. We urge the Government to enter into negotiations in full consultation with President Arthur Miki of the National Association of Japanese-Canadians.
Finally, there are a large number of signatures on a petition which states quite categorically that the petitioners reject Multiculturalism Minister David Collenette's proposal on the topic of Japanese-Canadian redress on the basis of lack of negotiations with the National Association of Japanese-Canadians. They support Japanese-Canadians in their democratic process and urge the Government of Canada to begin full negotiation and consultation with the National Association of Japanese-Canadians through President Art Miki.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-255, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act (supremacy of the Act) and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to allow the Hon. Member to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. The purpose of this Bill is to affirm the supremacy of the Official Languages Act over the powers and regulations of Parliament and the Government of Canada, in order to stress the truly national nature of this legislation.

June 28, 1984
Introduction of Bills


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



RAILWAY ACT


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-256, an Act to amend the Railway Act (fences).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the purpose of this Bill is to empower the Canadian Transport Commission to order the construction of six-foot chain-link fences along railway rights of way to protect children entering onto rail lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



LOUIS DAVID RIEL


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-257, an Act to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair may have reservations about the infringement on a royal prerogative of mercy, but with this caveat I shall proceed. Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in a number of previous years, I and other Members of the House have introduced Bills calling for the pardon of Louis Riel. From what I have heard from the Metis people of Canada, those people would prefer a Bill that revokes the conviction of Louis Riel rather than the
pardoning of Louis Riel. I take great pleasure in moving this Bill and hope we can pass it through all stages tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



NUCLEAR WEAPONS-FREE ZONE ACT MEASURE TO ESTABLISH

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: for leave to introduce Bill C-258, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear weapons-free zone.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in order for Canada to set an example, it should cease to be a target or a participant in the preparation for a final holocaust. I move this Bill in the hope that any participation by our country in the nuclear weapons race would be totally meaningless and therefore Canada should be declared a weapons-free zone.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



MINGAN ARCHIPELAGO NATIONAL PARK ACT


Yvon Pinard: for leave to introduce Bill C-53, an Act to establish a National Park on the Mingan Archipelago.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 28, 1984



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Introduction of Bills:
June 22, 1984-Mr. Murphy-Bill intituled: "An Act respecting the electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador)".
Mr. Speaker:: At this point we do not appear to have the Bill of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) before us. In order for us to proceed, it is necessary for the Clerk to have a copy of the Bill. If the Hon. Member can get a copy to the Table, perhaps we can do it by consent or perhaps we can do it tomorrow. It is as he chooses.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT


Yvon Pinard: for leave to introduce Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



FEDERAL COURT ACT


Yvon Pinard: for leave to introduce Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Federal Court Act, the Judges Act, the National Defence Act, the Canada Pension Plan and the Statutory Instruments Act in relation to judicial matters and to amend certain other Acts in relation to the reconstitution of the courts in Ontario and Manitoba.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?
Introduction of Bills


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with first reading of Senate Public Bills, I would like to ask the unanimous consent of the House for reverting to Introduction of Bills. Earlier, the Opposition Parties generously offered to allow introduction today of a Bill for which notice was given by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and which concerns the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act.
The notice appears on today's Order Paper, but normally, the Bill would have been introduced tomorrow. If you have the Bill, we could perhaps, with the unanimous consent of the House, introduce the Bill now. If you do not, we will see that you do receive the Bill, and it could be done later on.


Mr. Speaker:: By consent.



FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AGENCIES ACT


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-56, an Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: By consent, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Whelan, seconded by Mr. Pinard, moves that Bill C-56, an Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I did not agree. I am prepared to give this matter expeditious treatment, and I can assure the Minister that the Bill has now been introduced. But as the Government House Leader will appreciate, he has stated the order of business and, therefore, we will deal with the Bill later this day. We are quite prepared to have the Bill

June 28, 1984
Order Paper Questions
put through later this day. However, I think it would be appropriate first to distribute the Bill to Members for their consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? By consent, later this day?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we were prepared to put the Bill through all stages now. However, if we are to deal with the Bill later today, we will seek the proper consent in due time. It may be that we will have the time to deal with the Bill today. If not, it will be made an order of business for tomorrow. In any case, it will be called before the end of this session.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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. 234, 398, 568, 751, 758, 809 and 814.


Mrs. Cossitt: 1.	Since January 1, 1973, what are the names and job designations of all persons employed by, connected with, or in any way associated with, the Canadian Transport Commission who were issued passes by Air Canada?
2.	Did the wives or personal associates of any such individuals hold permanent or temporary passes of any kind on Air Canada during the same period and, if so, what are their names?


Lloyd Axworthy: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows:
1.	According to the records of the Air Transport Committee, since January 1, 1973 to December 13, 1983, the names and job designations of all persons employed by, connected with, or in any way associated with, the Canadian Transport Commissions who have been issued passes by Air Canada are:
(a) Annual Passes
*	Hon. J. W. Pickersgill
*	Hon. E. J. Benson
*	G. Roberge J. T. Gray
*	R. R. Cope Y. Dube
M. D. Armstrong R. Azzie J. L. Bourret
*	Mrs. A. H. Carver D. H. Chapman
*	J. F. Clarke
J. G. Drainville
*	H. H. Griffin
Past President
Past President
Vice-President
Vice-President
Vice-President (Research)
Vice-President (Research)
Chairman, A.T.C.
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
D. H.Jones
*	E. H. LaBorde
*	G. F. Lafferty P. Langlois
J. A. D. Magee
*	R. M. March
J. M. McDonough R. J. Orange
*	L. R. Talbot
J. D. Thompson
*	J. B. G. Thomson Ms. A. M. Trahan J. F. Walter
B. R. Wolfe
*	J. W. Green L. G. Potvin
(b) Individual Trip Passes
*	L. Fortier
*	R. M. March
J. M. McDonough
*	J. M. Woodard J. G. Drainville
*	H. Arbique
*	J. M. Fortier
*	G. W. Nadeau
*	C. Norton L. G. Potvin
*	M. E. Burwash
*	B. Ward
*	P. Mertens J. O'Hara
*	S. MacLean J. S. Marko
*	R. G. McLaughlin
*	D. F. Quirt
D. A. D. Saarty
*	F. W. Woodward
*	J. P. Lalonde
*	J. L. McGuire H. G. Porter
D.	C. Rennick R. Boyle
*	G. Brock
G. F. Sanderson
*	L. Bigras
*	L. Boult
*	C. Errington
E.	Fraser
*	F. Roy
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Executive Director, A.T.C.
Executive Director, A.T.C.
Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Secretary General Counsel General Counsel Legal Counsel Executive Director Executive Director Chief
Senior Court Clerk
Executive Assistant
Director
Director
Director
Director
Director
Director
Secretary
Chief
Chief
Analyst
Inspector
Inspector
Examiner
Secretary
Administrative Assistant
Secretary
Secretary
Secretary
2.	No permanent or temporary passes are held by any spouse. However, single Air Canada trip passes have been issued to spouses of the following persons ("spouse" includes travelling companion):
*	H. Arbique R. Boyle
*	A. H. Carver
*	R. R. Cope
*	L. Fortier J. T. Gray
N. M. Jarrette
*	G. F. Lafferty
*	S. MacLean J. S. Marko
*	P. Mertens J. E. Pageau
G. F. Sanderson
*	J. B. G. Thomson B. R. Wolfe
M. D. Armstrong
*	M. E. Burwash
D.	H. Chapman
*	C. Errington
E.	Fraser
*	J. W. Green D. H. Jones
*	J. P. Lalonde J. A. D. Magee
J. M. McDonough
*	G. W. Nadeau
*	D. F. Quirt
*	J. C. Sullivan J. F. Walter
*	J. M. Woodard
R. Azzie J. G. Drainville
*	J. F. Clark
*	J. M. Fortier J. W. Gervin
*	H. H. Griffin
*	E. H. LaBorde P. Langlois
*	R. M. March
*	R. G. McLaughlin
*	C. Norton
*	G. Roberge
*	L. R. Talbot
*	B. Ward
*	F. W. Woodward
* No longer employed or connected with the CTC.
June 28, 1984


Mr. Howie: Who in the National Film Board is responsible for maintaining levels of acceptable good taste in its productions?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: I am
informed by the National Film Board as follows:
The Government Film Commissioner is the final authority on whether or not a National Film Board production will be released for public viewing. It is useful to note that NFB films represent the work of one or more artists working to make the most effective film possible for a designated audience. The question of taste is recognized as a matter of individual perception and each film director as well as the Government Film Commissioner is careful to ensure accuracy of information while assuming that standards of good taste are observed.
107744 CANADA INC.


Mr. Howie: To the knowledge of the Government is 107744 Canada Inc. a subsidiary of Petro-Canada Inc.and, if so, what are the (a) names (b) positions of the persons who occupy positions on the Executive and Board of Directors and, in each case, what amount was he/she paid in respect of that position in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1983?
Order Paper Questions
Rouyn, Quebec, Joliette, Quebec, Montreal, Quebec (Place Bonaventure), Toronto, Ontario (two locations).
(b)	The experimental trial has been in effect since March, 1984 and will be completed at the end of June, 1984 as originally planned.
(c)	Consumers Distributing initiated negotiations.
2. Consumers Distributing is paying for the services provided during the market test. The amount being paid is proprietary information.


Mr. Fraser: 1.	In 1980, by source, what were the (a) actual (b) allowable levels of sulphur dioxide emission in Canada east of the Saskatchewan-Manitoba border?
2.	Were there any computer analyses of how various sulphur-dioxide-emission-reduction strategies would accomplish a reduction of wet sulphate deposition in sensitive areas in Canada, east of the Saskatchewan-Manitoba border and, if so, what were their results?
3.	Did the Department of the Environment state that an annual loading limit of 20 kilograms of wet sulphate per hectare would protect moderately sensitive areas in eastern Canada from further deterioration and, if so (a) what scientific justification is there for the statement (b) on what studies, papers or reports is the statement based?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: 


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Canertech Inc. reports as follows: No, 107744 Canada Inc. is not a subsidiary of Petro-Canada Inc. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Canertech Inc. which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Petro-Canada.
Manitoba
lnco Thompson HBMS Flin Flon All other sources **
Executive and Board of Directors
Ontario
(a)
Name
Lome D. R. Dyke Robert J. Bevis
(b)
Position
President and Director Vice-President
lnco Coppercliff Falconbridge-Sudbury Algoma Steel-Wawa Ontario Flydro All other sources **
No compensation was paid in respect of these positions in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1983.
Quebec
Noranda-Noranda Noranda-Gaspe All other sources **
(a)
1980 Actual
215.000
248.000 31,000
812,000
122,000
161,000
397.000
272.000
552.000 91,000
442.000
(b)
1980 Allowable
414.000
293.000
1,072,000
154.000
161.000 452,000*
552,000
91,000


Mr. Stewart: 1.	Did the Canada Post Corporation and Consumers Distributing Company enter into an agreement with respect to mail-order shopping through the Post Office and, if so (a) how many corporation offices are participating in the project and what are their locations (b) what is the duration of the contract (c) which party to the agreement initiated the negotiations?
2.	Is Consumers Distributing Company paying corporation for the services provided and, if so, what total amount?


Mr. Normand Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: The Canada Post Corporation informs me as follows:
L (a) Eight corporate outlets are participating in the test market. The outlets are located in the following communities: Pembroke, Ontario, Smiths Falls, Ontario, Cornwall, Ontario,
New Brunswick
New Brunswick Electric Power 122,000 All other sources **	93,000
Nova Scotia
Nova Scotia Power	124,000
All other sources **	95,000
Prince Edward Island All sources **	6,000
Newfoundland
All sources **	59,000
* 3 year projected average (1979, 1980, 1981).
** Diverse sources: No acid rain related legislated levels: Eg. Commercial and industrial boilers, residential furnaces.
2. Yes. Impact of S02 reductions (kilograms of wet sulphate per hectare per year):
122,000
124,000

June 28, 1984
Order Paper Questions
Current Deposition	Deposition with 25 per cent Reduction in Canada	Deposition with 50 per cent Reduction in Canada	Deposition with 100 per cent Reduction in Canada	Deposition with 50 per cent Reduction in Canada + 50 per cent Reduction in U.S.Boundary Waters Area	7-12	7-12	6-11	6-11	6-11Algoma Area	18-22	17-21	16-20	14-18	11-15Muskoka Area	29-35	27-33	24-30	20-26	13-19Montmorency Area	27-33	25-31	23-29	19-25	15-21Kejimikujik Area (N.S.)	17-23	17-23	16-22	14-20	15-20
Figures are approximate
3.	Yes. (a) Research (described in the report named below) indicates that moderately sensitive aquatic ecosystems that were studied in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Maine and New Hampshire which received substantially more than 20 kilograms per hectare per year wet sulphate deposition, experienced effects such as increased acidity and damage to fish population. Ecosystems receiving substantially less than 20 kilograms per hectare per year deposition experienced no effects. Therefore, the value of 20 kilograms per hectare per year is considered to be a reasonable first approximation to a target loading.
(b) Canadian justification of the 20 kilogram target is based on field research that has been described in the final report of Work Group 1 on Impact Assessment under the United States-Canada Memorandum of Intent on Transboundary Air Pollution.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Does the Government have any financial commitment, or did it expend any funds, for the revitalization of downtown Moncton, New Brunswick and, if so (a) what amount (b) under what programs and, in each case, how and when were assistance applications filed?
2.	Did any department oversee the federal role in the project and, if so, what department?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: 1. (a)
The federal Government entered into a Canada-New Brunswick Subsidiary Agreement under the General Development Agreement on a 80/20 cost sharing basis with the federal contribution not to exceed $8,000,000. Of this amount approximately $825,000 was expended in 1983/84.
(b) Funding for this project was made available under the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program announced in the April 19, 1983 budget. At the time the program was announced, it was anticipated that the Government would be requested to contribute to the revitalization of the downtown core of Moncton. This was confirmed on August 4, 1983 when representatives of the City of Moncton met with the Minister of Public Works Canada and senior officials of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, Public Works Canada and the Ministry of State for Economic and Regional Development to present their "Revitalization of Downtown Moncton Plan" and to request financial assistance.
2. The responsibility for the Moncton Core Revitalization Subsidiary Agreement was transferred to Public Works Canada.


Mr. Epp: Did the Government order the printing of any copies of a brochure entitled "Social Development and the Government of Canada" and, if so (a) how many (b) what was cost of (i) printing (ii) distribution (iii) postage, including special delivery charges?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Yes. A brochure entitled "Social Development and the Government of Canada" was printed. Details are as follows: (a) 34,000 copies, (b) (i) Printing cost: $22,360. (ii) and (iii) Distribution cost of postage: $4,499.21.


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


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 427 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 427 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Howie: In 1983 was any interior landscaping done by or for the Department of Public Works and, if so (a) at what cost (b) on which projects?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 28, 1984



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr, MacEachen, for Mr. Chretien, that Bill C-43, An Act respecting the Canada-Nova Scotia Agreement on Offshore Oil and Gas Resource Management and Revenue Sharing and to make related and consequential amendments, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Herbert in the Chair.
Harold Thomas Herbert: Order, please.
House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-43, an Act respecting the Canada-Nova Scotia Agreement on Offshore Oil and Gas Resource Management and Revenue Sharing and to make related and consequential amendments.
On Clause 2-Definitions


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Is there a Cabinet Minister here today who is responsible for this Bill? Are we going to have anyone acting on behalf of the Government who will have officials in the Chamber in order that Members can satisfy themselves as to some of the complexities of the Bill?


Harold Thomas Herbert: Is it the intention of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to respond to the question?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I see the officials in the Chamber and I am pleased about that. However, there is a Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is drawing a salary for that purpose. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what is more important to the Minister of Energy than being in this Chamber at this time to answer questions about this very important piece of legislation? Why is the Minister of Energy not with us?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has assigned this responsibility to me. I would suggest that any questions of that nature should be addressed to the Minister himself.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: This legislation refers to an agreement. Was the Parliamentary Secretary present when the agreement was reached? Was he physically present?
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that question is obvious. I was appointed Parliamentary Secretary on March 1 of this year. As the Hon. Member knows, the agreement precedes that date.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Order, please. I have allowed this exchange to carry on although it is hardly a point of order. It is not essential for the Minister to be present. However, if there is another point which the Hon. Member for Calgary West wishes to raise, he may do so.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would like to turn over a decision to you. This Chamber is being asked to approve an agreement. An "agreement" is an understanding between at least two parties, perhaps more. Do we have someone from the Government side who is recommending this agreement to us who was present when the agreement was reached? Do we have anyone who can testify before us as to what happened, as to how the agreement was reached, as to the importance of it? If we do not, are we proceeding, Mr. Chairman, in the proper way for a Committee of the Whole of the Parliament of Canada?


Harold Thomas Herbert: Order, please. It is not necessary for the Minister to be present. It is not a point of order. It is entirely up to the Government to proceed in the fashion it wishes. The questions should be put and if the Hon. Member is not satisfied with the answers he takes the appropriate action.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Chairman, this is being ridiculous on the part of the Hon. Member. We are dealing with a Bill, and we are at the Committee of the Whole stage. All the Hon. Member has to do, and all he is allowed to do, is to comment on the Bill, ask questions on the clauses of the Bill, but not on anything else. Parliamentary Secretaries are appointed to assist Ministers in their parliamentary duties. We have an excellent Parliamentary Secretary here. He is very well assisted by very competent officials and he will be glad to answer questions in relation to clauses of the Bill.
For the Hon. Member opposite to refer to something which happened outside the House, and to blame someone because he is not here to answer questions, is not according to parliamentary practice. We are dealing with a Bill. The Hon. Member is allowed to ask questions on clauses of the Bill. We are willing to answer him, and that should settle the matter.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I am sorry, I must cut this discussion off. This is purely debate. There is no point of order. The exchange has been made. Two points of view have been expressed. I feel that should be the end of that particular point. We are discussing Clause 2. Shall Clause 2 carry?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions on Clause 2. The clause refers to an agreement reached on March 2, 1982. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether or not there is anything added to this piece of legislation which was not agreed to by March 2, 1982? Is there anything subsequent

June 28, 1984
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement
which has been added? If so, can the Parliamentary Secretary identify it for us?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, there are some sections here which were not referred to in the original agreement. They will be identified as we go on.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us, then, why we have this definition of "agreement", if it is not an accurate definition?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this Act, of course, is to implement the agreement. For clarification, I might say to the Hon. Member that in certain areas we had to go into explanations, and to implement the ideas, to put further definitions into the Bill to cover those items. Those are the differences we are referring to.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Can I repeat my question? I believe the wording of the definition of "agreement" refers to the situation as at March 2, 1982. The Parliamentary Secretary tells me that the agreements reached in this Bill extend beyond that date but it does not say that in the definition of "agreement". I am simply inquiring why it does not say that.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, the answer supplements the agreement which was made at that time. As we go through the clauses we have to have some flexibility in describing the agreement and putting it in. Therefore, I believe in a general sense the spirit of the agreement is in this legislation and I do not believe there are any great departures from it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The same clause refers to a definition in the oil Act for oil and gas. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us in his words the difference? Can he define for us the difference between oil and gas? It is really quite critical to some parts of this Bill.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Which parts specifically is the Hon. Member referring to?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Clause 2(2).


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The term "gas" refers to gas or gas liquids. That is the reason there is a separation of the two.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I appreciate the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to be helpful. What is the critical difference between oil and gas?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there has ever been any difference between what is oil and what is gas and gas liquids. I am not quite sure what the Hon. Member is driving at.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: If I can refer to a clause which appears a little later on the Province of Nova Scotia, the people of Nova Scotia and the Government of Nova Scotia have a right to a 25 per cent interest in one kind of deal and a 50 per cent interest in the others. Therefore, we must be able to define which is an oil field and which is gas field. We had better be
able to do it precisely or we will end up in a court of law. It is pretty disturbing that we are being asked to push this Bill through the House in one day when the Government reached an agreement two years and three months ago. If something as fundamental as the definitional difference between "oil" and "gas" is not known to the Government, or it has not decided what that difference is, or if it cannot explain it, then, Mr. Speaker, I suggest we are really in trouble.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, the definition which the Hon. Member is seeking is laid down in another Act and I will attempt to get that definition for him.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, can the Parliamentary Secretary define for us the term "field"?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, the term "field" is described in another Act. It says right in subsection (3) that "field" has the same meaning as in the Oil and Gas Production Act. A lot of the terms which are included in this particular section of the Bill are already laid out in other Acts which are in place.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Bill refers to the Oil and Gas Production Act or the definition of "field". Is the difference between an oil field and a gas field described in that Act, the Oil and Gas Production Act?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, "field" is described in the Oil and Gas Production Act and the other is described in the Canada Oil and Gas Act. The Hon. Member is asking questions related to quite a number of Acts in the energy field. I can only assure him that these definitions are already in place in those Acts.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Can the Government tell us why it is satisfied with the definitions?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, obviously if the Government has already passed other Acts with these definitions in them, then yes, the Government is satisfied with the definitions.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Can the Government tell us how long those definitions have been in existence in the legislative sense and whether or not they have caused any trouble or led to lawsuits, disagreements or problems of any kind?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: These definitions are used in the collection of taxes and royalties. There seems to be no great problem there, Mr. Chairman.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Careful use of an adjective, no "great" problem. The definition of "great" is a subject for another time. Is there or is there not a problem with the definitions as they exist? Are they leading to lawsuits or problems in the Tax Department of any kind, great or not so great?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: We have a legal view on that, Mr. Chairman, if you can give us a few seconds here.
June 28, 1984

There has been no problem to our knowledge, Mr. Chairman. We are not aware of any at this particular time.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Is there a procedure in place where the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister would necessarily have knowledge of problems, or is that something that might simply accrue to the Minister of National Revenue, for instance? Or is there provision somewhere, somehow, that the Parliamentary Secretary has knowledge of?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources collects the royalties, not the Department of National Revenue. As the Hon. Member knows, there is liaison between and among Government departments affected by legislation in place.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: May I confirm, then, that there is no necessity for the Parliamentary Secretary to have that knowledge? Is that what he just said?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: What I said, Mr. Chairman, was that the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources collects the royalties and taxes. There is liaison among the departments. As I said before, to our knowledge there has been no difficulty.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Has the Parliamentary Secretary himself made any personal inquiries of any private sector company as to whether or not these definitions are causing problems?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: No, Mr. Chairman. Neither have I had any representations from them. My experience in politics is that if there is a serious problem out there, someone will be talking to you.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Can the Parliamentary Secretary define for us the definition of "Crown share", because it is also important to other parts of this legislation?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Again, Mr. Chairman, the Crown share is defined in the Act as a 25 per cent interest reserve by the federal Government in any exploration agreement that is signed. I believe that definition will be found in Section 18 of the Act.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The limitation is the reserve when a lease is let out, the 25 per cent reserve. So if Petro-Canada had a 50 per cent interest, even though it is a federal Crown corporation, that would not be a Crown share?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: To my knowledge that is correct, Mr. Chairman.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Does the definition of Crown share apply to any known oil and gas anywhere in Canada not on Canada lands? Does the concept of Crown shares simply apply to Canada lands?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: In this particular legislation it would apply to Nova Scotia lands because it is a Canada-Nova Scotia offshore agreement. It would apply to the Canada lands and the Nova Scotia lands as well.
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement


Harold Thomas Herbert: The Hon. Member's time has expired. Are there any other Members wishing to put questions? If not, then back to the Hon. Member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Can the Parliamentary Secretary delineate for us, because it is not in the Bill, the difference between Nova Scotia lands and lands related to the offshore? He has indicated it is offshore and he is dealing with Canada lands and Nova Scotia Lands.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: This Act, as the Hon. Member knows, sets aside the jurisdictional debate for argument, and the Bill itself defines what would be Nova Scotia's area of jurisdiction and the federal Government's jurisdiction. To my knowledge, and I stand to be corrected, it would apply only to federal lands out there, and then in the case of the province, it would apply to Nova Scotia lands depending on the provisions of the Bill.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Is the Parliamentary Secretary defining Nova Scotia lands as dry lands or is there Nova Scotia lands involved in the offshore?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member is trying to draw me out here.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Agreed.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: He is asking me to make a legal interpretation of where Nova Scotia lands are, even though no court or body has ever decided that issue. I say to him in all fairness that yes, to my knowledge there are certainly Nova Scotia lands there but I would ask the Hon. Member, with all due respect, not to have me draw the lines. I do not think anyone would pay very much attention to that kind of decision.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: In the first arrangement on the lands that are of concern around Nova Scotia, the first agreement to allow drilling to occur, was there a 25 per cent reserve on behalf of the federal Government? Or was there a fee paid or agreed to which did not include a reserve for the federal Government?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The answer to the Hon. Member's question is no.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying that in the first agreement there was no Crown share?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: There was no such item in place before the Canada Oil and Gas Act. The answer is no. I assume that is the area which the Hon. Member is inquiring about.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: With the passage of that Act during the life of this Parliament the Crown all of a sudden had a 25 per cent share. What did the Crown pay for that share?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: That is a rather complex question. At the time of transfer there could be an ex gratia payment, but none has been made yet. We have had no transfers to date. It is in the Canada Oil and Gas Act that ex gratia payments would be

June 28, 1984
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement
made at that time. Since no transfer has taken place, the answer is no. Nothing has been exercised yet.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am a little confused. In existing agreements there are no Crown shares?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The actual Crown shares would not originate until such time as there is that transfer. They are there at the present time as a potential, but they do not actually take place until the transfer takes place. The Crown has not exercised that interest yet but they are potentially there. They do not have them in fact.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Given the definitions in clauses which follow, the federal Government has chosen not to exercise that right. Through the mechanism of this legislation are we transferring the power for the Government of Nova Scotia to force the exercise of that right? Are we passing power from the federal Government to the provincial government in terms of forcing the exercise of that right?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Government of Nova Scotia would have that right to claim at the time that the transfer takes place, when a significant discovery takes place and is declared. It has not happened yet.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I think the answer is yes, that the provincial government has the power to do that. What is the cost to the provincial government to get its part of that Crown share?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: At the time they make the transfer it costs the province 2.5 times the amount of PIP money that has been paid out.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: So the oil industry out west is taxed. The federal Government takes the money and gives it to the companies that drill. If Nova Scotia wants to have its share it must take money out of its general revenue and pay that to the federal Government for its share. Am I correct in saying that for its portion of that Crown share the Government of Nova Scotia will pay a great deal more than the federal Government paid for its portion of that Crown share?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: There are other areas where the federal Government is involved in payments. We are putting up money for exploration of the fields. While the Nova Scotia Government pays 2.5 times the PIP money, this does not take into consideration the ex gratia payments. It does not take into consideration the fact that we will never get money back for the dry holes.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Are we talking about holes or fields?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: They are holes, whether they are on land or not. Perhaps the Hon. Member wants to call them offshore or wet. But there is no production of the product.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I suppose we could probably take quite a bit of time on Clause 2 of what is a very lengthy Bill. I would just
like to state before we move on that my worst fears have been confirmed through this process. We are not in a process that allows elected Members of Parliament to do their job on behalf of the Canadian people. We are not in a process in which we can adequately examine the legislation and call witnesses to determine whether or not there are in fact problems of definition, real or imagined. This is certainly unsatisfactory.
On top of an unsatisfactory process, I find the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to be an absolutely reprehensible abomination of what on earth the Parliament of Canada is all about and what ministerial responsibility and authority is all about. I think it is atrocious.
We are prepared to let Clause 2 go on division. If there are no further questions, we can move on.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.
On Clause 4-Amendment of Agreement


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Clause 4 allows two appointed people, Cabinet Ministers, one provincial and one federal, to meet somewhere and change everything. Is that the correct interpretation of what Clause 4 would do? No matter what the Parliament of Canada or the legislature of Nova Scotia decides, those two appointed individuals could amend everything? If they cannot amend everything, would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us where the limits are?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, the two Ministers can change the agreement but they obviously cannot meet and change legislation that has been passed by the legislature of Nova Scotia or the Parliament of Canada. They can meet and decide on changes in the agreement itself.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: This Bill establishes a board. Can those two people simply change the powers of that board?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: In the agreement, the Hon, Member will realize that the powers of the board are laid down; but the Ministers can change the power of the board as it can change the agreement from time to time by way of delegation of authority.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Can those same two Ministers alter the terms whereby the province can acquire its portion of the Crown share? Is that something else those two can do?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: No, Mr. Chairman, they cannot. That is set down in the legislation and it would take legislation to change that.
June 28, 1984


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That is a nice reassurance. Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell me the exact clause that restricts them from doing that?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Would the Hon. Member define what he means? Restricts them from what?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me that the Province of Nova Scotia can acquire a portion of the Crown share based on the agreement. It seems to me that Clause 4 says that the Minister can amend the agreement without going back to anyone. You are telling me that those Ministers cannot amend the agreement; or if you are telling me that the acquisition of Crown share is not part of the agreement, please indicate from where you get that knowledge?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, the Crown shares mentioned in the agreement could not be changed by the Ministers. The legislation will lay out how this is to proceed, but the Ministers cannot change the legislation without coming back to their respective Parliaments.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Let me see if I can put it in a different context for the Parliamentary Secretary. Can the two Ministers, one at the federal level and one at the provincial level, decide between them the terms and conditions that shall prevail for the acquisition of any particular Crown share without going to Parliament or anywhere? Can they or can they not?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, if I can clarify this, the two Ministers must honour Clause 17 in this Bill. We can do nothing with the Crown shares until we have the legal authority of this Bill to do it. However, if the Ministers want to change something in Clause 17, then of course we are back to the legislative process.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Let us go back, given that explanation. What is Clause 4 all about? It says that those two Ministers can amend the agreement. What is the agreement?
We had trouble with Clause 2. My first question was related to the meaning of the word "agreement". What is it that they can amend?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, it must be clearly understood that the agreement itself is a political document, it is obviously not legislation in itself. The Bill that is before us today lays out the framework of that agreement. There are even things in the agreement itself that the Ministers could adjust and change without coming back to Parliament, because they are of an administrative nature. However, if they want to make any major changes that involve legislation, they must come back to Parliament. In the meantime they must honour what is stated in Clause 17.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, in that context, what is the relationship between Clause 17(9) and Clause 4 which we are dealing with now?
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, it refers to the way in which the province will pay for its Crown share. I think that is what the Hon. Member is looking for.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Clause 17(9) states:
An acquisition pursuant to subsection (2) shall be made on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Minister and Nova Scotia Minister in accordance with the Agreement-
Clause 4 states that those same two people can modify the agreement. Does that mean the two Ministers for each individual acquisition can do what they please without reference to Parliament? If they can modify the agreement, and the acquisition is dependent upon the agreement, does that in effect result in a situation where two appointed people can determine the method and terms of acquisition?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, under law and in an Act the specifics override the general statements. The Hon. Member will agree, I am sure, that Clause 17 lays out the specifics whereas Clause 4 is more of a general nature.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, is it the Government's position that Clause 17 overrides Clause 4? Does that in effect make Clause 4 redundant or unnecessary? My original question was, why is Clause 4 in the Bill? What can the two Ministers do? Can they do everything or can they do nothing?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, I understand that Clause 4 was placed in the Bill at the request of the province in order to make the agreement a little more flexible and to give a little leeway in the dealings. Clause 4 is not strictly necessary, but if you stick strictly with Clause 17, you have a more inflexible Bill. As I said, Clause 4 was put in at the request of the province.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I have one last comment on Clause 4. It cannot be implemented without the concurrence of the federal Minister plus a provincial Minister. We are still in a concurrence agreement kind of situation. Can that clause be used to alter the formula relating to the retail sales tax, revenue sharing or things like the PGRT?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: First, Mr. Chairman, the sales tax is set out in the Bill. The revenue sharing is set out here and royalties are already fixed by statute. Again, Clause 4 is a very general statement.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, is the Parliamentary Secretary saying that it is the Government's conviction that Clause 4 could not be used? Is that really the sum total of what he is saying, that Clause 4 could not be used to change any of those taxation arrangements? Is that the Government's position?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, Clause 4 cannot be used to amend legislation by the two Ministers but it does allow them to consider changes to those parts of the agreement that are outside this legislation. That is the flexible part of the agreement that I spoke of earlier. There are parts in the agreement

June 28, 1984
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement
that, because it is a political document, the two Ministers could change. But they cannot change those parts of the agreement that are included in legislation.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, is there judicial experience with a clause like Clause 4? If there is, could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what other Act in Canadian jurisprudence has a similar clause in somewhat similar circumstances?


Mr. Nowlan:: The Canadian Oil and Gas Act?


Harold Thomas Herbert: Before the Parliamentary Secretary responds, the Chair would question whether the question itself is permissible. I will let the Parliamentary Secretary respond if he wishes.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: To our knowledge, Mr. Chairman, there is none. The Hon. Member is asking a very far-reaching question. To our knowledge, no.


Harold Thomas Herbert: The Chair finds such a question to be a legal-type question.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing the question. It is a clause in the Bill and it is difficult for the Parliamentary Secretary to testify because I think it is an untested clause, an untested type of clause. It is a leap into the future, a leap into the unknown. Clearly the government of the province and the federal Government wants to take that leap. I think it is important to identify that there is a leap here with unknown complications and unknown potential for the future.
Unless there is someone else from our Party who wants to ask a question, we are prepared to let Clause 4 pass on division.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, let me say in reply to that that I think this legislation implementing this agreement is a real leap forward into new grounds of federal-provincial relations. We hope it will lay the groundwork and solid framework for such future agreements.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, this Bill would have had a lot more positive vibes if we had had it introduced a long time ago and had Members of Parliament had an adequate time to look at it so they could be helpful to the Government in making sure it was a good, solid, helpful agreement.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
On Clause 7-Establishment of Board


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, what consideration is given to reconciliation of an impasse? If the board reaches an impasse on something important, how do they get out of it?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, the board has a total of five members. Because there is an uneven number, hopefully there will not be an impasse.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
On Clause 9-Directions
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, Clause 9 provides that if the board is directed jointly by the representatives of the federal Government and the representatives of the provincial government, the board must act in accordance with those written directions. Is there a potential problem for a board member getting different directions from whomever it is who appointed them?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Not really, Mr. Chairman. Even the federal Minister might be influenced by the provincial Minister or vice versa. I believe the people on the board are well qualified. I might say that this board has been operating to date without any real legal status. It has been working very smoothly. It has been a very good experiment. That is why we are implementing it now in the legislation. It is certainly a part of the Bill which has been tried and found to be a very successful procedure. The credibility and qualifications of the people on the board and the fact that they are compatible speak well for the process.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 17-Definitions
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, why did the Government agree to Nova Scotia having up to a 50 per cent interest in a gas field and only a 25 per cent interest in an oil field? Why the discrimination against oil in favour of gas for Nova Scotia?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: It is simply the result of negotiation on a large number of items. These two were adopted as being fair when all financial items in the Bill were discussed. It simply came out on balance this way, and the two parties were very agreeable.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The portion which accrues to the people of Nova Scotia would be 12.5 per cent of an oil field. If we look at provinces such as Saskatchewan, British Columbia or Alberta, what portion of an oil field tends to accrue to those provinces?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: In this agreement the provinces get 25 per cent of the oil shares and 50 per cent of the gas shares. In addition, Nova Scotia is getting the whole series of other items to which I referred in my speech this morning. Its income from those other revenues is tremendous and very substantial.


Mr. Forrestall:: That is a nasty rumour. There has not been a nickel made yet.
June 28, 1984


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, I hear the Hon. Member. I know he is a very positive thinker. He is just waiting for this legislation to be passed because his home province will benefit tremendously and perhaps his own provincial taxes will go down.


J. Michael Forrestall: I want it, I want it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, let me apologize. It is 12.5 per cent of the gas and 6.25 per cent of the oil.
I will put my question to the Parliamentary Secretary in a different way. Given that there is as much oil offshore Nova Scotia as we might find onshore in the Province of Saskatchewan, in which place would you rather live if you were after the oil in the ground? Do you think the Government is being as generous to the people of Nova Scotia in this agreement as it might be?


Harold Thomas Herbert: Order, please. The Hon. Member should direct his remarks to the Chair.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Does the Government think that it has been as generous with the people of Nova Scotia as it should be? Are the people of Nova Scotia being treated equitably compared with the people of Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia when it comes to their capacity to participate in the revenue from oil?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: In this agreement the province is getting equalization payment protection and all the revenues which I mentioned before. It will actually receive more taxation money for its offshore sources of oil and gas than it would receive if the wells were on dry land.
As far as the question of the Hon. Member is concerned in which be asks me where I would rather live, I think that is a pretty dangerous question. I would have to say to my own people in the Ottawa Valley that I wish the rest of the people of Canada well in the agreements with the provinces. We are all very loyal Canadians, but I would rather not answer that question except to say that I am quite happy living where I am.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Parliamentary Secretary is indicating that the people of Nova Scotia will receive greater revenue from the oil offshore than would be the case if that same oil were onshore and totally under the control of the people of Nova Scotia. Is he saying that the revenue to the people of Nova Scotia will be greater offshore than it would be onshore?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: To my knowledge that is correct, unless the Province of Nova Scotia gets to the stage where it is very rich in revenues from oil and gas offshore. It would be more than it would receive if those same wells were onshore.
As the Hon. Member knows, the Bill spells out that there will be equalization arrangements for any government in Nova Scotia so that when it becomes wealthy it will not be hit with a sudden, drastic cut in transfer payments from the federal Government.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement
Clauses 18 to 20 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 21-Security of supply
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, in this clause the Government of Nova Scotia is given a "reasonable opportunity" to acquire a 50 per cent interest in a pipeline. Generally the word "reasonable" is defined in economic terms. However, could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us the sense of the word "reasonable"? How and who will decide on what is reasonable?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Normally the National Energy Board would decide on that. It has guidelines to follow on those items.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: If it is the Government's intention and if it is part of the agreement to have the National Energy Board decide what is reasonable, why has the Government chosen not to specify that in the Act? Why was this situation left so unclear?


Harold Thomas Herbert: Just for the purposes of clarity, is the Hon. Member discussing something in Clause 21?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, it is on the following page. Excuse me, it is not Clause 21. Are we on Clause 21 or Clause 22?


Harold Thomas Herbert: Clause 21 is before the committee.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am sorry, my questions were dealing with Clause 22.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 22-Definitions
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, may I have my questions answered?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, I might add that the National Energy Board has a vast amount of experience in dealing with these matters. This is why it has its guidelines and formulas to go by. On Clause 22, there were discussions earlier, which were not finalized, as to whether the House would be inclined to allow an amendment by unanimous consent with regard to Clause 22. I wonder if we could have an indication from the other Parties whether they would now be willing to go along with the introduction of this amendment to Clause 22.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I wish to address the question posed by the Parliamentary Secretary. It was the hope of the Province of Nova Scotia that an amendment might be included that would clearly spell out with respect to Clause 22(1) that notwithstanding anything else in the provision as suggested, it does not include laterals, gathering lines, blow lines, structures and facilities for the collection and processing of oil and gas.
I suppose there are two problems. The first is the admissibility of the amendment and, second, the undertaking that the matter would go through as it is presently in front of us. As

June 28, 1984
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement has been pointed out by my colleagues from Calgary and others, it is a matter that will have to be addressed because it does cause some concern. There have been widespread discussions with respect to it. For the time being, the matter can be clarified by some instruction or advice from the parties concerned. It is perhaps an oversight, a matter that perhaps falls between a number of schools. Nevertheless, we are faced with it. For the time being, we will not give consent to its introduction at this time. It may just lend further confusion.


Harold Thomas Herbert: The Chair should say that unanimous consent is not required in order to introduce an amendment at this stage.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Hon. Member for that explanation. This morning the Hon. Member for Calgary West was zeroing in on Clause 22(2). The amendment which we were going to propose, which now we cannot, was by way of clarification of the definition of a Nova Scotia offshore pipeline in which the province has the right to acquire on a commercial basis up to 50 per cent ownership to apply only to a trunk line and specifically to exclude gathering lines, flow lines, structures and facilities for the production and processing of hydrocarbons. Because there is no agreement, we will let it go at this time.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Just for clarification, there is no restriction if the Parliamentary Secretary wants to pose the amendment at this time. He may choose not to, but he can if he wishes.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, there was the clear understanding that there may be some procedural difficulties with respect to this because it does have the effect of substantially changing the definition sections. I would invite the Parliamentary Secretary's comment. It is unfortunate, but perhaps for the time being it is best left not dealt with.


Harold Thomas Herbert: The Chair has had the benefit of being advised of the amendment so as to be able to study it. The Chair finds the amendment admissible if the amendment is proposed. However, it is entirely up to the Government whether it wants to propose the amendment.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, in the best interests of everyone and for the sake of continuing the rapport with which the Bill is being discussed, we will not carry that further if there is no agreement.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 91 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 92-Amendment to Access to Information Act
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, in Clause 92 I think you will find some major discrepancies between the French and English versions of the clause. I do not know which of the versions the Government intends to be the official one. However, I think it
might be easy to correct that at this point in time before we finish the Bill.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, could the Hon. Member please point out the precise discrepancy?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I do not think that the English version of lines 7, 8 and 9 accord with the French version of the same lines.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his intervention. The English version is the correct one and the French version will be changed accordingly.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, may I further point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that the first part of paragraph 2 in the English version is not repeated in the French version? Lines 14, 15 and 16 are the same, but lines 17, 18 and 19 in the English version are not repeated in the French version.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, those changes will be made. The French version will be translated from the English version.


Harold Thomas Herbert: The Chair regrets this, but there must be an amendment proposed to correct the Bill. This is not simply a translation error. There will have to be an amendment proposed to put in the correction.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps you could consider standing this clause with unanimous consent so that we could draft the proper translation while we finish dealing with the Bill clause by clause.


Harold Thomas Herbert: The Chair would also like to point out that this clause by clause study goes on until five o'clock, at which time we proceed to Private Members' Hour. We could stand the clause now, proceed if you wish with the remaining clauses and then return to that clause at the appropriate time.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, we are certainly agreeable to whatever works best and fastest.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the interests of saving time or in the interests of not wasting time, I bring to your attention that when we dealt in the Alberta Legislature with a large Bill like this one, the entire Bill was dealt with using one or two words. If any Member wished to speak to any particular clause, he simply asked to do so. That procedure did not delay debate or hurt debate but it did facilitate the passage of a Bill like this very rapidly. I would suggest that we do that. Otherwise, it is simply a matter of saying agreed over and over again and that is really a waste of time.


Harold Thomas Herbert: The Chair thanks the Hon. Member for his intervention, but this is the Canadian Parliament and not the Alberta Legislature.
Shall Clause 92 stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Stand.
Clause stood.
June 28, 1984

Clauses 93 to 97 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedules agreed to.
Harold Thomas Herbert: At this stage, the Chair would suggest that it might be appropriate to call it five o'clock so that at six o'clock we could return and continue this discussion.
If that is agreeable to the House, then the Chair could report progress. Is that agreeable to the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harold Thomas Herbert: The Chair will then report progress and will continue the discussion at six o'clock after Private Members' Hour.
Progress reported.



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 at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave)-Railways-Alfalfa products freight rates. (b) Request that Minister conduct investigation; the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Tessier)-Trade-Textile and clothing imports-Government action to protect jobs; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Bilingualism-Education of immigrant children. (b) Native Indian children-Access to aboriginal language education.
Order. 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-PUBLIC BILLS

["The Hon. Member cannot move at this time. He has already spoken. The Chair would recognize the Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Shroder), but I must inform the House that the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.\nPursuant to Order made Thursday, June 14, 1984, the House will resume consideration of Government Orders."]
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had consultations with Members from all sides of the House and I would beg leave for unanimous consent to deal with Bill C-252, a Bill which stands in my name and is seconded by the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), through all stages. This Bill deals with the provision of access to the records of the Special Committee on the Defence of Canada Regulations which sat during the Second World War. This is the only way these
Stadacona Mines Limited
records can be opened up. Since the Government has made available most of the other records relating to the Japanese and others, this is the only set of documents from the Second World War that has not yet been released dealing with these items.
The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills is the seconder of the motion. I do not see him in the House, but the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) has agreed to second the Bill in his place. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills has just walked in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the proposal of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.



John Mercer Reid: that Bill C-252, an Act to grant access to records of the Special committee on the Defence of Canada Regulations, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

David Berger: that Bill S-16, an Act to revive Stadacona Mines (1944) Limited and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have engaged in consultations with representatives of the other two Parties. I believe if you would seek the consent of the House, we would have agreement to pass this Bill today through all stages.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the consultations referred to by the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) have indeed

June 28, 1984
Political Rights
taken place. We are more than pleased to accommodate the passage of Bill S-16.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Elouse has heard the proposal which was made by the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger). Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Therefore, the motion should read: "Mr. Berger, seconded by Mr. Gimaiel, moves that Bill S-16, An Act to revive Stadacona Mines (1944) Limited and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act, be now read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole House".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all orders and items preceding Item No. 50 stand, by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: that Bill C-248, an Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (political rights), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the umpteenth time that a Bill of this nature has been presented in Parliament since the 1950s. However, the last time this occurred was on April 30, 1982, at which time Members from all sides of the House agreed with the Bill, but there was no agreement for it to be passed. At this time I called as my witness the late lamented and departed Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton who spoke in favour of this Bill and urged that it be passed. I want to remind Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, that a gentleman by the name of Guy D'Avignon was Chairman of the special committee appointed by the Government to review personnel management, conditions of employment, the merit principle and other aspects of the Public Service. I would like to read to the House the first paragraph of his report, which reads as follows:
Citizens of a democracy have a right to take an active part in the political process; by their actions they assure a healthy, responsive democratic system of government. Today, no one would lightly propose the extinction of this right with regard to any individual or group.
But the Government chose to ingore that part of the report having to do with political rights. The report was made, by the way, in the spring of 1979. The Chairman of the committee recommended that public servants be put in three categories when it came to political rights. The third category would cover probably 85 per cent or 90 per cent of the federal Government and Crown corporation employees.
Just two or three weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, we witnessed a situation where rank and file federal public civil servants elected as delegates to a national convention of a Canadian political Party were threatened with dismissal, or will be dismissed, because on their own time they took part, as can any other citizen, in the political process. One of those delegates comes from the City of Winnipeg. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) said it was a little bit of a denial of their rights but that it is the Public Service which makes the rules. The Public Service Commission makes rules, Mr. Speaker, based upon the legislation, and until we change the legislation, the Public Service Commission cannot change the rules.
I want to remind Hon. Members that in the experience of the United Kingdom, which has, one has to concede, a professional public service, that public service has had full political rights for many years. Whether or not it chooses to exercise those rights is entirely its own decision. Many public servants do, some do not.
My Bill, Sir, would exclude those who are in what one could call the "Order in Council category". They could still exercise their political rights because they have a contractual arrangement with the Government, with the Cabinet, whether it be a Deputy Minister or the head of a board or whatever. They can still choose to be politically active and would know ahead of time that they were taking their chances as to their reappointment. However, Sir, that does not apply to the tens of thousands of clerks and stenographers, people in many categories of employment in the Public Service.
In 1945, the Government of Saskatchewan under Tommy Douglas not only provided for the right to organize, the right to bargain collectively, but also the right to take part in political activity. Once and for all we removed the ability of a government of any political strijpe to prohibit or inhibit any public servant or Crown corporation employee in Saskatchewan from taking part in the political process if they chose to do so. Four other provinces have done the same thing. However, this place, which should have been setting the example and leading the way, has not done so.
I can cite my own experience, Mr. Speaker, as an employee of Canadian Pacific Limited. You will agree, Sir, that there was not much love lost between my Party and the CPR in terms of what we considered bad corporate behaviour on its part for a hundred years or more. However I felt then from 8.30 in the morning until 5.30 in the afternoon, at no time did
June 28, 1984

I say or do anything of a political partisan nature when I was on duty and being paid by the company which employed me. I did all I could in as conscientious a manner as I could to earn the salary I was being paid for conducting the company's business. However, after 5.30 in the afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I went to political meetings. I obtained leaves of absence to work as an organizer, to be a candidate, and I returned to my job without any loss of seniority. It ended up, Mr. Speaker, that that corporation and I severed relationship, at my decision. I resigned. But for all the years I worked for that corporation I was able to participate in the political process on my own time, on leave of absence without pay or on holidays with pay.
Surely, Sir, we cannot allow that right for some groups and not for others. We must allow that right for all. Some day, and I am surprised it has not happened yet, some federal public servant is going to take the Government of the day to court and will win. Why should we wait around asking for that kind of trouble?
My Bill provides for deletion of Section 39(2) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act which would mean, Sir, that the organization to which the federal public servants belong could use the dues which were paid to it in any manner it sees fit, including contributions to a political Party or a candidate of a political Party. Again, Sir, other organizations in other parts of our economy are able to do this, whether it is a trade union, business association, or any other kind of organization. The members of the organization themselves decide how much they will pay in the way of dues and how they will spend those dues, and that is perfectly proper. If a chamber of commerce, a business organization, a trade union or a farm organization decides it wants to expend some of its own funds, a decision agreed to by its members, on behalf of or opposed to any political Party or candidate, it can do so and in fact it does so now. It has the right to do so.
That is a minor part of my Bill, Mr. Speaker. If the Public Service employees of the federal Government were to decide by a democratic vote that they wanted to spend their money on behalf of a Conservative, a Liberal or an NDP candidate, or any political Party, or if they wanted to spend some money against that Party, they should be able to do so as well as anyone else. That is only a minor provision of the Bill compared to what I and others before me are trying to accomplish. We have to recognize that employees of the federal Government, including the House of Commons, taking part in the political process while off duty do not harm the Government of the day or Parliament. Experience in several provinces here and in the United Kingdom has shown that any time public employees have participated in a political process, no matter what their success or otherwise, they returned to their duties and carried them out in a conscientious and trustworthy manner. That certainly was our experience in Saskatchewan. We had provincial civil servants who ran as candidates for the Social Credit, Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats. Some of them won, some did not. The ones that did not, returned to their duties. We even had former members of the legislature from different Parties who kept their positions in
Political Rights
the employ of the government long after they were members of the legislature, even when the government changed. To their credit, they all carried out their duties in a conscientious manner.
We are no longer in the days of patronage when federal public servants had no bargaining rights. They were all hired and fired by the government in power. A government in power can no longer do that. These people have their own organization and the right to bargain collectively. Those rights include their political rights.
Since the House has been in such an amenable mood these last few days, and since we just passed two Bills in Private Members' Hour by unanimous consent through all stages, I would like to ask the House to do the same thing in this instance. I have spoken to Members on all sides and I would like to obtain agreement that we pass this Bill through all stages so that it becomes the law of the land before the next federal election. Tens of thousands of federal public servants have been told by Members of all political Parties, publicly and privately, that they should have the same political rights as others. This is an excellent opportunity for all Members in this House to put their actions where their mouths are. I hope my good friends in the Conservative and Liberal Parties will rise in their places for five or ten minutes, if they want to speak on this Bill, but not talk it out. I hope they will support what our former colleague, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, had to say on this Bill in 1982. We have had two years to think about it. Surely it is time to provide federal public servants with the same political rights that the rest of us enjoy. Democracy is indivisible; you cannot divide our people into groups, one of which can go to a meeting but another which cannot. Surely it is time, particularly given our new Constitution, to put an end to this treatment of federal public servants. I hope that my colleagues on all sides of the House agree that we can put this Bill through in all stages today.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has certainly put forward an interesting proposition this afternoon. Bill C-248 relates to political activity by public servants and amends the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act concerning political activity. It is my understanding that the present Act provides for limited activity such as party membership, the ability to attend certain Party meetings and so on, but it does not provide for high profile political activity or senior positions in political Parties. The Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections has been studying for the last few days matters relating to the ability of people to become candidates in election campaigns and so on. The Hon. Member has made the argument about how the Bill of Rights grants certain political rights in this country. Obviously he firmly believes that we should change the historical nature of our Public Service from one that is politically neutral to one which is politically active.

June 28, 1984
Political Rights
I think of the Jacksonian democracy in the United States. I believe it was Andrew Jackson in the U.S. election campaign of 1820 who said that to the victors go the spoils. That of course is a very important part of the U.S. democratic system, but it is quite different here in Canada. I think the Public Service generally, certainly at the federal level, has operated very well on a neutral basis. In fact, there are very strict rules about Party activity.
I appreciate the arguments the Hon. Member makes, and if you looked strictly at the Charter of Rights I guess you would agree with his arguments. On the other hand, I think we have to look at it from the public's perception of how the Public Service operates. It is perceived to be neutral? The Hon. Member outlined how he was able to be completely neutral in the daytime and be a Party activist in the hours off work. I am interested in those comments because I noted that when the Government introduced in the House what was to become the 1967 Public Service Staff Relations Act, it had been subjected to further scrutiny and consultation on the part of interested parties. When the matter was before the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons concerning the public service the late David Lewis said that it may perhaps surprise members of the committee to hear that he was in favour of organizations of public servants being prohibited from acting on behalf of a political Party. Whatever the case may be with other employee organizations, Mr. Lewis said that he did not think you could have a public service organization affiliated with or working on behalf of any political Party.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is not the point.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The public perception of the public service is very important in this regard. Senior executives have been prohibited from becoming candidates in election campaigns because it is felt that they have a senior managerial or executive role. Staffing officers have been prohibited under Section 32 of the Public Service Act because it is felt that if they were perceived to be partisan and people got turned down for jobs that would adversely reflect on the public service. Officers enforcing regulations have not been permitted extensive political activity because when they are enforcing regulations and laws it is felt that it is important that they be perceived to be completely neutral and impartial.
Page 36 of the report of the Special Committee on Personnel Management and The Merit Principle reads as follows:
With respect to public servants who perform a regulatory role, many interven-ors stated that these public servants should not be given freedom to participate in Party politics. Otherwise, the public might well perceive that a licence denial had political connotations when, in fact, it stemmed from failure to meet the requirements for granting of a licence. The theme of most intervenors who took this position was that, when public servants are in direct contact with the general public, they must be seen to be politically neutral. The possibility of meeting a public servant during the day as a regulator of Government policy and meeting him again at night as a campaign worker for a political Party could be damaging to the credibility of the public service. Examples of employees in this category were given as: radio inspectors, customs officials, CEIC officers, and fisheries inspectors.
I think it is good that this issue be debated. Times are changing and nothing is cast in stone for all time. People are more active politically and want to be so. The Charter of Rights suggests that these are principles of freedom of expression and association which are important. I think that we have been generally served by a public service which has been able to act impartially and be perceived to be impartial to political partisan association. Before we change that we should make sure that any new directions would be perceived by the general public to be better. 1 think it is good that we debate this issue from time to time. However, I personally would not recommend making the changes which the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is proposing to us this afternoon.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of the Bill, in terms of section numbers, makes eminent good sense. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) for bringing the Bill forward in the fashion that he has. It is most appropriate having regard to recent developments with respect to a certain Crown corporation, an employee of which, a certain Ad Varma, was dismissed on Wednesday of last week because he approached two Members of Parliament with information that he had. Both Members of Parliament were sitting on this side of the House.
This gentleman, who happens to live in my constituency, was dismissed by the senior officers of Canada Post because they alleged that he had a conflict of interest. That conflict of interest is a rather strange one, having regard to the fact that he behaved in a fashion which should have resulted in his being awarded recognition by the House and the people of Canada generally for what he endeavoured to do. If this Bill in its present form were to have been in place and extended, as it should be, to Crown corporations, Mr. Varma would still be serving as an employee of Canada Post and discharging duties in the fashion that he has for the benefit of the taxpayers of the country.
Mr. Varma came to two Members of our Party, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) and the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), having been frustrated in his endeavours to convince senior officials of that corporation, which is the successor of a Government Department, that there were some unusual occurrences within the Department which were not remedied when that Department became a Crown corporations. In particular, Mr. Varma indicated that he was hired to assist in a managerial position with respect to computer programs. He indicated that it was very strange to find, despite the fact that the corporation had acquired expensive pieces of computer equipment, that the equipment was set aside and replaced with a system acquired as a consequence of the recommendation of certain senior officials of the Post Office Department, as it then was. Upon investigation, it appears that those senior officials had a vested interest in the company supplying those services. I am not talking about small, non-consequential amounts of money. There was some $3 million involved in that little project.
He tried to convince other officers of the Department that there was something amiss with the equipment that they then
June 28, 1984

had and which was developed internally, in that the equipment broke down with some surprising regularity. Such regularity smacked of sabotage. There happened to be two sets of this equipment operating in two separate locations. It was only the set in the location where the senior officer had an indirect interest with the supplier of the new product that the product on site continued to break down.
Matters became so serious that the RCMP was called in to investigate the circumstances surrounding both the breakdown in the equipment and the supply of the new equipment, and whether or not there was in fact a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest should be given its proper name, that is corruption. The RCMP investigation has never been made public and the officials of Canada Post today allege that to make that information public would reflect badly on both officials within Canada Post and people with whom Canada Post has business dealings.
As a consequence of the release of this information by this honest, public spirited citizen, the Auditor General has undertaken a complete investigation of the activities of this bloated Crown corporation to determine whether the charges made by Mr. Varma are accurate.
It is interesting to note that this man, while hired at a senior post, resigned that position to take a position as a postal clerk. He then agreed that in the event that his charges were not substantiated he would cheerfully resign. He was approached and intimidated by officers and finally fired by a man named Mr. Bodrug in the Toronto office of Canada Post. Mr. Bodrug is a man who I have endeavoured on numerous occasions to reach by telephone to deal with this problem and others that have concerned my constituents. This pompous potentate, who believes that he is above all other authority and beyond the realm of the House, has absolutely refused not only to return my telephone calls but to even speak to me. The message that he has left is that he will not have any conversations with me at all. This is the man who fired Mr. Varma.
Mr. Varma is the man who has gone to the extent that he has jeopardized his livelihood for the sake of assisting the people of Canada in getting a fair and honest deal from suppliers to Canada Post. He is fired and Bodrug is there, the man who dismissed him. Of course, Bodrug will not have any conversations with Members of Parliament. However, they have appointed an official who will have conversations with us, but this official has no authority to either say or do anything. That has become so typical of the way in which Crown corporations and government departments function.
These public servants are not asking for a reward, they are simply asking that some justice be done because there is some chicanery taking place. I believe very clearly that in the event public spirited public servants cannot, within the realm of their own departmental or Crown corporation function, convince their superiors that something is amiss, and if they cannot get a fair hearing to unearth the trouble, they are surely entitled to go to the only place where there should be people interested in
Political Rights
bringing the matter to light, that is the House of Commons. They should be able to do so without risking their livelihood.
While this Bill deals with political activities, and indeed running for a position in the House of Commons, it will go a long way in remedying some of the ills that currently exist.
However, in my view Clause 3 of the Bill is not to be supported. It is so typical of the NDP. They have an excellent idea and then ruin it by promoting something that may appear to make good sense at first, but upon reflection and examination is an underhanded way of avoiding the normal consequences that apply with respect to donations made to political parties under the Income Tax Act.
I am aware that the Hon. Member for Regina West has said that he believes all citizens should be treated the same. I suggest to him that that should be true indeed. However, certain groups of citizens should not have special rights that others cannot enjoy.
It is clear that according to the provisions of the Income Tax Act individuals, and indeed corporations are restricted in the amount of tax advantage they gain as a result of making political contributions. As a matter of fact, the amount on an annual basis is $1,150. Beyond that, one might as well pay money out and expect no tax benefit. However, up to that amount, and indeed on a declining basis, there is certain tax relief for all contributors to political parties.
But in the event that an employee of a trade union, including a Public Service union, makes a contribution with respect to his union dues, it is deductible in total whole. No limitation may be placed on them. The Public Service union does not include one nickel of the receipt in the computation of its income. If the Hon. Member for Regina West wishes to stand in his place and say that he believes union dues should be taxable in the hands of the union, we would have a different ballgame. However, knowing his inclinations, I rather suspect that that will indeed not be his message. He wants to create a special privileged group, the union bosses who reach into the pockets of the employees, extract their funds and pay it over to the NDP. Therefore, you will find that from my standpoint-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. friend. Would he permit a brief question because I know that he would not want to inadvertently mislead Members of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member accept a question at this time?


John Albert Gamble: Perhaps the Hon. Member can put his question to me when I have concluded my remarks. I am almost finished.
My point is simply that while the Bill contains some very beneficial provisions, it is the final clause that breaks the camel's back. It is indeed based upon a special preferential arrangement which the Hon. Member decried in his own speech as being unsuitable. Therefore I could not vote for this Bill.

June 28, 1984
Political Rights
Had the NDP, and particularly the Hon. Member for Regina West, really wished for this Bill to pass and truly wanted to remedy the ill of which he speaks and about which I am in complete accord with him-the freeing of public servants from the detrimental effects of the Public Service Staff Relations Act as it relates to political activities-he would have left the third clause out of the Bill. However, knowing full well that he did not really want this Bill to pass but simply to make a show, we now have a situation where this Bill, because of the preferential treatment granted as a consequence of tax considerations that appear in Clause 3, has little chance of passing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina West on a question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, is my hon. friend now repudiating the support given to this same Bill by the late Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton two years ago? Second, is he not aware that the union dues of employees have already been calculated in their taxable income and they have already paid the income tax on it?


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member should do one thing before he pursues this matter any further, and that is to look at the provisions of the Income Tax Act before he indicates to the House and the public generally what its provisions are. I can tell him that union dues are deductible in the computation of income. They are not treated in the same fashion as political contributions. They are deductible, to the last dollar. Accordingly, it is that issue which has not received the attention of the House before.
With regard to what Hon. Members in the House today, or who may have been in the House before, have done with respect to legislation, I am not answerable. I am, however, answerable for bills that are brought in today for examination. I feel perfectly content in examining every piece of legislation and commenting on it as I feel it should be commented upon. Indeed, that is the duty of every Member of the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I put part of my question badly. The hon. gentleman is perfectly right. I meant that a trade union organization that makes a contribution on behalf of its members gets no tax benefits since it pays no taxes in the first place.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will proceed to debate.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I too would first like to commend the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) for bringing the Bill before the House. I also have concerns about the Bill. I will not speak long so that other members will have an opportunity to speak.
I suggest that there are two problems with the Bill. The first problem is clearly that which was pointed out by the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble). I think it is blatantly obvious why that particular clause was put in the Bill by the Hon. Member for Regina West.
Second, and we have discussed this at length in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates with the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, others and my constituents, the Bill is too broad. It is precisely what I said when we debated this Bill two years ago when the late Hon. Member for Nepean Carleton was here and made a contribution. If my memory serves me correctly, he agreed with me that the Bill as it is drafted is too broad.
A separation has to be made in this legislation in defining political rights. This is not the case now. They are not well defined. It is a very vague situation that public servants face. But the differentiation has to be between those people who are involved in policy, who interact on a regular basis with a minister, which goes far beyond the deputy head who is the only person excluded by the Hon. Member's Bill. It has to separate those involved in direct dealings with the Minister in a policy aspect and those who are not. Those who are not involved in direct policy dealings with a Minister should not be restricted in their political activities. I do not know how many times we have to say this among ourselves before it finally gets through, but that is the way the law should read. Those involved in policy who are meeting with a minister on a regular basis should refrain from overt political activity. It is obvious why. If Governments change, it can place the jobs of those senior people in the bureaucracy in jeopardy.
The Hon. Member for Regina West knows very well what happened to identified New Democrats in the Province of Saskatchewan when Mr. Devine's government came to power. Those people under Saskatchewan legislation at the senior level were allowed to politicize themselves. They did. When Mr. Devine's government came into power he swept them out of their jobs.
We want continuity in the Public Service. It is important to have continuity. The way you can combine the notion of continuity in the Public Service with the freedom to have political activity is to separate that notion on the basis of policy. Those people who interact with ministers and those people who have a policy impact should be precluded from overt political activity. Those people who do not should be free to have political activity. But the Bill before us is too broad. It says only deputy heads, and order-in-council appointments cannot involve themselves in political activity or politicize themselves. That is where the Bill goes wrong. Again, it is still wrong. Two years ago I said to the Hon. Member, and I say it again, if he brought forward a Bill that took that into consideration I could certainly stand in this place today and support it.
We have laws in place now. Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act says that a public servant cannot participate on behalf of a candidate or a political party during an election. And then there was some misconstrued interpretation, according to me, and I am on the record in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts when Mr. Gallant, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission was before the committee. The misconstrued interpretation of the Public Service Commission was that somehow that applies to all cases of political activity
June 28, 1984

by public servants. Through the use of Section 7 of the Financial Administration Act, which allows the deputy head to take disciplinary action, notes and memos were sent out to every public servant prior to the Liberal leadership convention indicating that no public servant could involve himself or herself in any way in the leadership convention.
There are some other problems, Mr. Speaker. The Act allows individuals to be members of political parties and to attend political meetings, make contributions to political parties, but a person cannot work on behalf of a candidate during the period of an election. We have to make this clear.
What if, for example, a person wants to run in an election. That is precluded by the Public Service Employment Act. A public servant may not stand for election to federal office, to provincial office, or to territorial office. But a public servant may, if he or she gets leave of absence from the Public Service Commission. You apply for leave of absence from the Public Service Commission, as I did when I was a public servant. I was denied. The person who ran against me for the New Democratic Party works in the National Archives. That person applied for leave of absence and he was granted leave of absence. When he was defeated in my riding he went back to the National Archives.
What criteria did the Public Service Commission use? It used precisely the criteria I am describing today. Does this person have a policy input? Does this person interact with a minister? Yes, he does. No, he may not have a leave of absence. No, he does not. Yes, he may have a leave of absence. The law the way it stands now in this particular case is an ass. It is ridiculous.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Pass my Bill then.


John Leslie Evans: The leave of absence is clearly given so a person can express openly and plainly, so the world can see, political affiliation, political partisanship. But the person has to do it off the job so to speak.
What is the purpose of the law? The purpose according to the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, in discussions I have had with him, is that public servants' political leanings should be veiled so the public does not get the feeling that there is a partisan aspect to the service of the public. How can you possibly say that there is a veil before the partisanship of a public servant when you have just granted that person a leave of absence, he or she has gone through an eight-week campaign, having his or her name plastered all over the riding and then the individual comes back to work afterward, having lost. You now say: "The veil goes back up again. You really did not see that person campaigning."
The criteria are so loose and the provisions are so vague that public servants do not know what is possible, what is allowable, what is not allowable, or what is fair or what is not fair. The situation we have now is not fair. It is not clear, it is not just, and there is no way that we should be trying to administer a law that allows a bureaucracy to arbitrarily decide what is and what is not appropriate behaviour in the workplace on the basis of guidelines that do not exist.
Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement


Ian Deans: Why don't we change it, then?


John Leslie Evans: As I said before when we debated this Bill two years ago, if the Hon. Member would bring in a Bill that makes the kinds of distinctions that I have put forward today I will support him 100 per cent. If a person is not involved directly in policy-making, does not interact directly with the Minister, that person can undertake partisan political activities off the job, on their own time. There should be no restriction whatsoever on those kinds of people undertaking those kinds of activities on their own time. On the other hand, people involved in policy should continue to be restricted, as is the case in Britain, for example.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will say that I have every sympathy for the apparent intentions of the Hon. Member, but his Bill just does not cut the mustard. That is the problem. I will not support the Bill as it stands, but I will not talk in out either.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In order to speed up the proceedings of the Chamber, and if it will help my colleagues on the Government side and those from the Progressive Conservative Party, we could now pass second reading and move to Committee of the Whole, where, in order to get half a loaf, I will be quite happy to move an amendment to delete Clause 3 from my Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member cannot move at this time. He has already spoken. The Chair would recognize the Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Shroder), but I must inform the House that the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Order made Thursday, June 14, 1984, the House will resume consideration of Government Orders.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-43, an Act respecting the Canada-Nova Scotia Agreement on Offshore Oil and Gas Resource Management and Revenue Sharing and to make related and consequential amendments- Mr. MacEachen (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources)-Mr. Corbin in the chair.
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. With what clause are we dealing?


Eymard G. Corbin: I was about to do that. Clause 92 was stood earlier in committee proceedings. Clause 92 is before the committee.

June 28, 1984

Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Agreement
On Clause 92-Amendment to Access to Information Act


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, during the past hour we contracted officials of the Department of Justice. They have reviewed Clause 92 and have informed us that all is in order. The items on the English side of the page are not in the same order as they are on the French side. However, the clause as it stands is ready for passage.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, we in this Party are prepared to accept that that is what the Parliamentary Secretary was informed by officials of the Department of Justice. However, it still looks to us as if subclause (2) somehow or other contains a great deal more information on the English side than on the French side of the page. We will certainly not become involved in an argument in this Chamber. I do not have the credentials to attest to being an expert on translation, and I do not intend to try to translate it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Francis Fox: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I should like to participate for just a minute in that we have spent a good part of today on the Bill. Again I pay tribute to the Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia. Upon reading the Bill it is clear that the Premier has driven a hard bargain on behalf of the people of Nova Scotia. I think he deserves credit for that.
Also I should like to repeat some of my introductory thoughts, thoughts which I think were expressed by Hon. Members who spoke on behalf of our Party. There is something very wrong with pieces of legislation and with thought patterns which enable the Government of Canada, in the name of the people of Canada, to confiscate a portion of someone's property without compensation. This is what the back-in provision on Canada lands really represents.
I do not blame the Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia. Once the individual landholder has been robbed, then the Premier of Nova Scotia wants a part of the proceeds for the people of Nova Scotia, and that is probably appropriate. However, it is the federal Government which is doing the robbing, and that is inappropriate. I wish we could go back in time, and that the Chamber had reached a different conclusion.
One of the things we do in the House of Commons is pay Ministers an extra amount of money for doing ministerial tasks. Surely it is an insult to the Chamber and to the people of Nova Scotia that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) showed up today for Question Period but has not been with us at any other time during second reading, consideration in Committee of the Whole or now a third reading. It makes one wonder whether or not the
Minister of Energy has earned his paycheque on this day. If there were a way to move a motion to dock the Minister of Energy at least one day's pay, if not one month's pay, I would hope the Chamber would take that action. It is an insult to the Chamber and to the people of Nova Scotia that he cared so little about this agreement that he chose not to be with us at any point in the proceedings.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) on a point of order.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members ought to realize that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) has a host of other duties. If this agreement is adopted in the House today, it is thanks to the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been giving this matter special attention during the past months, and not to the comments of the Hon. Member opposite-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Francis Fox: There is just no comparison. Without the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, there would be no agreement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I wanted to express some appreciation to the Government. I take particular note of the fact that this is just another step in a continuing process which started with the Right Hon. Robert Stanfield, which continued with the Hon. George Isaac Smith when he was Premier of the Province, then with the present Minister for International Trade (Mr. Regan), and in recent years with the Hon. John Buchanan, the present Premier of Nova Scotia. These premiers, together with hundreds of officials, worked diligently to try in a small but very significant way to delineate the areas of jurisdiction and the questions of revenue sharing. This is but another step in that process.
As was pointed out, while the Bill may well be frustrated in the years ahead, nevertheless for Nova Scotians it is a step of some significant note. It is historic in the sense that we now know where we stand. We know now what are the rules of the game and we are prepared to play with those rules.
I suppose it remains only for us to echo our reservations with respect to the back-in provisions. Some of the provisions within the Bill will be deemed to be confiscatory because in fact they are. It was never intended that Nova Scotia would have ownership or control of the feeder lines, the collectors or all pipelines lying offshore. In essence they are the very valuable properties of that section of our life, the private sector which put the dollars into it. The taxpayers have put very little into it.

June 28, 1984

With that caveat, I express my appreciation to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I am sure the Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia would want us to do that. I extend very particular thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hopkins) and the officials who sat with us today and helped guide us through a very technical and difficult piece of legislation. It is historic. I was pleased to be here and be a part of it. As Nova Scotians, we thank you. Keep your dollars coming.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to point out that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) in no way deserves criticism on this package today. Indeed, he deserves our compliments. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who directed his staff and who himself participated in the discussions of Bill C-43 and on the Canada-Nova Scotia Agreement on Offshore Oil and Gas Resource Management and Revenue Sharing, was indeed the negotiator with Premier Buchanan of Nova Scotia. With an alliance like the Premier of Nova Scotia and the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, how could any agreement fail?
I am glad that my Minister gave me the opportunity to pilot this legislation through the House. I appreciate the remarks of the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall), who was elected to this Parliament on the same day I was, for commenting on it. Indeed, it is a very historic day for the Province of Nova Scotia. Our compliments must go to those who put this agreement together and followed up with the legislation. I was not concerned about the comments about this Bill today and the other comments that were made about my Minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, because I have faith in his negotiating skills. We have faith in Premier Buchanan. With a team like that, you are going to have a very good piece of legislation for Nova Scotia.
Following on the comments of the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, it is fair to say that this is indeed a very historic day in energy legislation. It is a perfect example of absolute co-operation between the federal Government and one of the provinces. Within this framework we hope that other agreements will come much easier in the future.
I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for their co-operation in getting this Bill through, and to say that we wish Nova Scotia well. We hope that other negotiations between Nova Scotia and the federal Government will be as constructive, useful and as long term. I am sure the Minister would want me to express on his behalf our appreciation to the House for the quick passage of this legislation.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will be even more brief than the other speakers. I certainly appreciate the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hopkins). I want to associate myself completely with the remarks of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Bank Act
Forrestall), in what he said about this Bill and the historic note that it has. Finally, after many years of discussion and planning, the officials of both governments put the details into an agreement that is complex, complicated and does go into unchartered waters. We are in a new era. This perhaps establishes the legislative framework in this new era which certainly we in Nova Scotia look forward to with eagerness, anticipation and hope.
With the greatest respect to my colleague from Calgary West, I want to completely disassociate myself with him and his remarks about the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), who has many things on his mind. Perhaps he had even more on his mind today, if I understand some of the reports correctly. I do not give a darn whether he was here today or not. The fact is, he was the one with the Premier of Nova Scotia, the Hon. John Buchanan, who came together in the agreement of general principle. We have seen the results of it here in the Bill. It illustrates that there can be federal-provincial co-operation. Co-operative federalism is not dead as long as Members look at things constructively in the interest of their constituent parts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


BANK ACT
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Bank Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been discussion, and the agreement is that the Bill will be referred to a Committee of the Whole, not to a standing committee, and that we will deal with all stages of the Bill tonight.


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the understanding that we have.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, we also agree.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course, the Chair can only take cognizance of the proposal for unanimous consent once it is put to the Chair. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.

June 28, 1984
Bank Act


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, since the Bank Act revisions of 1980, which allowed for the first time foreign bank subsidiaries to become Canadian chartered banks, nearly 60 foreign bank subsidiaries have been incorporated as full members of the Canadian banking community. Under the terms of the 1980 Bank Act, foreign bank subsidiaries are limited to 8 per cent of the total domestic assets of the banking system. The legislation now before the House would raise the domestic asset ceiling on the foreign bank section to 16 per cent.
Experience suggests that the foreign bank subsidiaries have benefited Canadians in a variety of ways, including the provision of a competitive source of medium-size business financing, promotion of export activities and the creation of new employment opportunities. Moreover, the foreign bank sector as a whole is responsible for a substantial inflow of new capital into the Canadian economy. I would add that this is a matter of some urgency since some of the foreign bank subsidiaries now benefiting borrowers are already constrained in their ability to make additional loans.
It has long been a policy of the Government to increase competition in the banking industry. This reflects the fact that a handful of major banks control an overwhelming share of the domestic banking market. Accordingly, the 1980 Bank Act made provision for the entry of foreign bank subsidiaries as a way to increase competition. At the same time, however, the Government was conscious of a need to ensure that control be maintained in such an important sector. As a result, the foreign bank subsidiaries were limited in their share of the domestic market. The 8 per cent domestic asset ceiling is enforced by provisions in the Bank Act that limit the total domestic assets of each subsidiary of a foreign bank to 20 times the deemed authorized capital distributed by the Minister of Finance.
We are a trading nation, dependent to a large degree upon international trade and capital flows for our prosperity. The fact that Canada's largest chartered banks are active internationally is a reflection of that basic fact. The presence of Canadian financial institutions in foreign markets benefits Canadian exporters and serves as an efficient conduit for the international flow of funds. Since Canada has a comparatively small capital market, we require foreign funds to assist us in developing our abundant wealth of natural resources and to create jobs. However, the fact that our domestic banks are active in foreign markets results in demands for reciprocity by foreign Governments. Consequently, the Government feels that it would be advantageous to our long-term interests to ensure that Canadian banks remain active in foreign markets. The measure now before the House will assist in achieving that goal.
When the 8 per cent domestic asset ceiling was implemented, it was envisaged that as the domestic assets of the Canadian banks grew, so too could the domestic assets of the foreign bank subsidiaries. That is, the foreign banks would expand their asset bases, but because the banking system as a whole
would be growing, the 8 per cent ceiling would be maintained. However, in late 1982, the banking system began to contract as personal and business borrowers repaid bank debt. Consequently, while foreign bank subsidiaries applied for and were granted increases in their deemed authorized capital as they neared their individual lending limits, there was an increasing risk that the 8 per cent domestic asset ceiling would be reached. As a result, the issue of the domestic asset ceiling and the status of the foreign bank subsidiaries was referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The report that was prepared by that Standing Committee was tabled last autumn. It contained a number of unanimous recommendations including a recommendation that the domestic asset ceiling be removed completely. The committee also proposed that the Government undertake a review of all financial institutions. I am pleased to say that this process is already well under way. However, the foreign bank sector remains constrained by the 8 per cent domestic asset ceiling.
In making its recommendation that the ceiling be lifted, the Standing Committee noted that foreign bank subsidiaries have greatly contributed to the development of more competitive practices. This view was voiced by most witnesses who appeared before the committee. In addition, the committee found that the foreign bank subsidiaries have been a source of innovative financing practices and an important catalyst for change. Further, the evidence clearly indicates that the foreign bank sector has become an important and competitive source of funds for medium-sized businesses.
Since the Government's objective in introducing foreign bank subsidiaries into Canada was to promote competition, I am gratified that the committee determined that this goal has been met. As I have noted, the Government's policy is to encourage competition in the banking system. All the available evidence suggests that raising the domestic asset ceiling would benefit Canadians by providing a greater level of competition.
It should be pointed out that some Members are concerned that Canadian non-bank financial institutions are not getting a fair deal from the Government. I can assure them, however, that this is not the case. I have personally been in contact with representatives of such institutions and have held useful discussions with them. Moreover, at the beginning of this year, I established a private-sector advisory committee to assist me in identifying potential policy problems inherent in the changing structure of the financial services industry and examining proposals for change to non-bank financial institution legislation.
The convening of this committee underlines the fact that the Government has no intention of embarking on an ad hoc program of legislative change. Rather, it seeks to formulate a reasoned, well balanced approach to important public policy issues. I should like to point out that the Standing Committee explicitly recommended that this review process be undertaken. This has now been done. It is now our intention to respond to the main concern raised by the committee, namely, that the foreign bank subsidiaries be given the opportunity to expand.



June 28, 1984

The Government's decision to raise rather than remove entirely the domestic asset ceiling reflects the fact that the removal of the ceiling would involve important questions of principle that should be considered in the context of a broader review of financial institution legislation including the decennial Bank Act review. At the same time, however, raising the ceiling to 16 per cent will provide the foreign bank sector with the additional room to expand and to continue serving Canadian borrowers in a manner consistent with the original intent of the Government.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to consider the following facts. First, foreign bank subsidiaries have contributed to the introduction of more competitive banking practices, particularly by providing services to medium-sized businesses. This was the guiding principle which lay behind the 1980 Bank Act revisions. Second, the all-Party Standing Committee unanimously recommended that the domestic asset ceiling be removed completely. Third, while the Government endorses the view that foreign banks have made the Canadian banking system more competitive, the retention of a market share restriction will ensure that Canadian control of the financial system will not be gradually eroded. Finally, the Government has been responsive to the concerns of nonbank financial institutions. The review process now being conducted by my committee will assist us in ensuring that the process of legislative change is conducted in a rational and orderly manner.
It is the Government's view that Bill C-30 will enable the foreign bank sector to continue to serve Canadian borrowers and that Canadians have reason to expect to benefit from its passage. A larger foreign bank sector will make our banking sector less concentrated and should contribute to a business environment more conducive to small and medium-sized enterprises.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the rosy prediction just read by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren), it seems that there is no doubt that this Bill should pass, if we are to believe all that we have heard. I have some serious doubts about the comments that were made, however.
For instance, the Minister said that Canada's control of the banking system will not be gradually eroded. In 1980, four years ago, the maximum amount of domestic asset holdings by foreign banking institutions in Canada was 8 per cent. Four years later, it will double to 16 per cent under this Bill. Is that gradual erosion or is that rapid erosion? Did the Minister really say that Canadian control of the banking institutions in this country would not be gradually eroded but would be rapidly eroded? Is there any significance to Canadian control of the banking institutions in this country? If there is, then I think the Government might well look at what it is doing.
There are a number of things about this Bill that bother me. Indeed, in his rather lengthy written speech, the Minister made no reference to those things at all. I am troubled by the fact that the chief reasons for the amendments to the Bank Act of 1980 that was given to the House and the country was
Bank Act
that it would permit Canadian banks to engage in activities worldwide. It was indeed a measure of reciprocity. Canadian banks were becoming international with head offices in Canada. If that is the case, where are the reciprocity clauses? We know, for instance, that Canadian banks cannot engage in banking activities in France because the French Government has nationalized the banks in France. Unless our banks wish to become nationalized, they cannot engage in banking activities in that country. Why then are French banks entitled to engage in banking activities in Canada?
I know what the Minister would say in answer to that. He would say that he heard evidence from those who appeared before the Finance Committee indicating that the emergence of foreign banking activities in Canada has created greater competition and the customers of Canadian banks have all benefited from that. I was not present at the hearings of the Standing Committee on Finance. That evidence may indeed have been offered. I do not doubt it for a moment.
However, I will say that there has been in large measure an attraction of foreign banks, carrying on activities in Canada, to the subsidiary businesses of foreign corporations that operate in Canada. Some of these corporations are large and very profitable and the banking profits that can be generated from them would be an asset to the Canadian banking institutions. By and large there has been an attraction, as I have indicated, and a siphoning off of that very profitable banking business which was formerly done exclusive by Canadian banks. It is now done by foreign banks which, through their parent operations in foreign nations, act for the parents of the Canadian subsidiary customers.
There is a matter which has been drawn to our attention which should be dealt with before this Bill is passed. The matter concerns an action by a foreign justice department against a Canadian bank. I am talking, of course, about the U.S. Justice Department and the bank is the Bank of Nova Scotia. Members will know that as a consequence of an investigation into organized crime, the United States Justice Department went to its Grand Jury with evidence that ultimately gave rise to the issuing of subpoenas for material which was in the hands of a U.S. branch of the Bank of Nova Scotia. That branch had been used by a customer to dispatch funds to another branch of the Bank of Nova Scotia in the Cayman Islands. The suspicion of the U.S. Department of Justice was to the effect that the funds were derived as a consequence of illegal activities in the United States and, more particularly, the offensive and horrendous drug trade activities in the U.S.
The laws of Cayman would apparently preclude the release of information which was in the hands of the Bank of Nova Scotia through its branch on the island. The U.S. Justice Department employed the tactic of pressuring the Bank of Nova Scotia, through its U.S. branch, to provide information to it which it did not have at its disposal and could only obtain through the branch in the Cayman Islands.

June 28, 1984
Bank Act
In order to obtain that information in a third jurisdiction, it was necessary to approach the Government of the Cayman Islands with evidence of the illegal nature of the activities which gave rise to the transfer of those funds. The U.S. Justice Department refused to do so and its officials said that under their laws, because the issue had first been presented to the Grand Jury, it was contrary to the rules of evidence to admit to the scrutiny of a foreign country the nature of the evidence before the Grand Jury had ruled on it. That is all very well. It would then appear in law that the U.S. Justice Department was precluded from exercising its ordinary rights to obtain that vital piece of information from the Cayman Islands.
However, they decided to proceed in a devious fashion. They decided that they would oblige the Bank of Nova Scotia to release the information to them on penalty of a substantial daily fine. Of course, that fine would ultimately be paid out of the revenues of the bank. They are asking a Canadian bank to breach the laws of confidentiality in a third foreign country on penalty of a substantial fine every day that the information is not made available. It has made a determined effort not to follow the normal course that is available to the U.S. Justice Department of going to the Government of Cayman and releasing the information, which would then give rise to a proper release of whatever information the branch of the Bank of Nova Scotia happens to have on the Cayman Islands.
The U.S. Government has made a mistake and it is trying to make a Canadian bank pay for it. I believe that that kind of issue should have been resolved before this Bill was brought before the House. We rarely get an opportunity to have any direct influence from this House of Commons on the way in which our nationals, be they individuals or corporations, are treated in foreign countries. The Government allegedly looks after Canadian citizens and corporations. Sometimes it does that in a rather slipshod fashion. It is in this House that we might well have delayed the passage of this Bill until we had an undertaking by the U.S. Government to proceed in the proper fashion and not badger and fine excessively a Canadian banking corporation which, if it follows the demands which have been made upon it, will be subject to criminal proceedings in a third country.
In making these comments, under no circumstances do I wish anyone to interpret my remarks as being some kind of condonation or protection for illegal activities. However, there is a way to obtain the information in a very proper legal fashion. Certain governments fail to take the steps required in order to obtain what they say they need and then use the clout of a fine against a Canadian bank to get indirectly what they cannot obtain directly. It should have been the duty of this House and its Members to speak out with respect to this issue before the Bill was brought before the House. I regret the fact that that has not been done.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-30, and Act to amend the Bank Act, particularly when we consider that Canadian home owners today are being driven to the wall, that the Canadian farming sector is
experiencing probably the most difficult time since the 1930s, and that the small business sector is debating whether it is time to walk away from its operations and declare receivership or bankruptcy.
It is a very tough situation. Canadians are expecting action from this Government on a regular basis. That action is not forthcoming. However, there are certain groups which are receiving some attention by this Government. We are discussing one of those groups at the moment-the foreign banks which operate in Canada.
Almost 60 foreign banks have asked for a very special concession. They have said that we ought to break with tradtion and freeze the Bank Act in this country for ten years in order to bring some stability into the banking system of Canada. The foreign banks have asked the Government to change this precedent. They have asked for a special concession. The 58 foreign banks from Japan, Korea, Israel, Greece and France which are operating in Canada, want a special concession from the Government. The Government is allowing that special concession.
The Government is ignoring Canadian small businesses. It is ignoring the fishing sector, the forest sector and the mortgage holders of Canada. The Government is ignoring the average Canadian individual who wants to borrow from the bank. However, when it comes to foreign banks, the Government feels that they ought to receive special treatment. That is what Bill C-30 gives-special treatment to the handful of foreign banks which are operating in Canada. I think it is a very black day when the Government considers this to be a priority item. It brings this legislation forward in the closing minutes of this Parliament. The Government considers this to be a priority item and it wants the House to pass this particular Bill. The assumption was, in terms of the government's explanation, that these banks provide a great deal of competition. Having 58 foreign banks operating in Canada with a greater amount of flexibility in terms of their banking operations, and with more of the banking action available to them, the Government says is going to help the small business people. But when one looks at the facts, they indicate something totally different.
The foreign banks have come into this country, almost falling over themselves, since 1980, getting into position to cream off the corporate loans of Canada. After all, when one considers that the overwhelming majority of these banks are located in three cities, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, and the overwhelming majority of them is in one single province, and when one considers that for all intents and purposes there are no branch offices at all, one cannot help but see that it is impossible for the foreign banks in their present state to offer much of a service to the small business sector and to the consumers of Canada. Yet these banks say, "Oh, yes, we are interested in helping the small borrower". However, when one looks at the size of their loan portfolios, one finds that loans in the $5 million to $25 million range account for 44 per cent of the foreign banking action, whereas with respect to domestic
June 28, 1984

banks, only 16 per cent of their total banking action are the $5 million to $25 million accounts. What about the loans under $1 million? The foreign banks have 6 per cent in that particular category, whereas the domestic banks have 28 per cent. It is perfectly clear from the data available, Mr. Speaker, that the service to the small business sector is simply not there. Of the assets of foreign banks, 70 per cent has been loaned to corporations with yearly revenues in excess of $80 million. This is not where we need help today, Mr. Speaker. This is not the sector which requires special consideration. We are saying that if the foreign banks want to expand their operations in this country, if they want special consideration in order to benefit themselves, they ought to indicate a little more clearly that they are here to assist those people who need help these days, namely, the consumers and the small business sector.
Out of the House of Commons report on foreign banks came a set of eight recommendations. It was agreed upon by the Finance Committee that some changes ought to be required, but the Government chose to focus on only a single recommendation. We have not not heard clearly about the whole set of other recommendations which came out of that particular analysis, Mr. Speaker. Quite frankly, I feel it is a little arrogant of the Government to say, "This is the kind of approach we are going to take. We are going to ignore seven recommendations out of eight and, by and large, focus on the one which is going to provide special assistance to the foreign bank". The institutions most likely to be hurt by this Bill are going to be the small Canadian owned banks which are today struggling against the oligopolistic role which the "big five" have in our country, and one can see that they are also going to to be up against the 19 American banks, the two Israeli banks or the seven Japanese banks, and now with this Bill there will be another seven or eight Arab banks and a number of other banks coming in. When we look at the smaller banks such as the Mercantile, the Canadian Commercial or the Northland, we can see that these banks are going to be up against some very special competition, and the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal are not even going to notice these new banks in place.
What we are going to see as a result of this move is a widespread closing of branch offices across this country, branch offices which exist in small communities and in the rural areas of Canada. These are the banks which are available to the small business people and to the general public. We are suggesting in this Bill that we now bring more of the foreign banks into Canada. The existing cross-subsidization which exists with the larger banks, which enable them to keep open a number of money-losing branches, simply will not be there any longer, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot, for the life of me, see how this Bill is going to benefit Canadians by allowing more foreign involvement in our particular economy. I suspect it is certainly going to result in a greater outflow of banking profits from this country. There have already been concerns raised because of the expanding role of Canadian banks overseas, that certain funds will be moved out of Canada to take advantage of those overseas
Bank Act
opportunities. What I feel is worse than that, Mr. Speaker, is that the profits from these 58 foreign banks, of course, are naturally going to be going back home, to the United States, to Japan or into the European banking system.
The foreign banks would also be less likely to assist in the pursuit of national goals such as the promotion of Canadian exports. Indeed, country lending limits imposed by the parent bank, whether that country be the U.K. or West Germany, could actually hinder the banking subsidiary operating in Canada from financing the sale of Canadian goods to one of the many financially hard-pressed developing countries.
What we are suggesting, then, is that at a time when we should be asking our banks to work with us in pursuing certain goals as a nation, goals which would see the economy revived and some direction in terms of economic development and investment, we are asking our friendly foreigners to join with us in this endeavour. We are asking them to act against their own set of priorities.
I am very concerned about this particular Bill and I am concerned that it is being brought forward in this particular fashion. I am concerned that it is not going to assist us in terms of providing greater competition, although the challenge will now be there. I believe that, as we work toward the next major change to the Bank Act, because of the fact that this concession has been given to the foreign banks by the Government, the foreign banks in the months and years ahead will have to indicate to the Government very clearly that a major portion of their loan portfolio has been moved into the small business sector and that a major part of their banking business has been done in co-operation with credit unions or other financial institutions. We are really tossing the ball now, Mr. Speaker, into the court of the foreign banks and saying to them, "Now that we have allowed you to increase your roll from an 8 per cent to a 16 per cent ceiling, we want to see some benefit accruing to the average Canadian citizen and to the small business community."
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we are very concerned about the nature of this particular Bill. We stand unconvinced that it is in the best interests of our country or that Canadians are going to benefit. As a matter of fact, from some of the points which have been made, Mr. Speaker, we are convinced that the net result will be a loss to Canadians, that in fact the existing level of the banking and financial services will deteriorate as a result of the so-called competition which these additional 58 banks-and likely to be more-will offer the people of Canada. So we will be opposing this particular Bill with some enthusiasm.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the previous speaker, I must say that I support this Bill wholeheartedly. I believe the more competition which we can get in our banking service and banking facilities, the better off we are going to be. We are a trading nation. Exports are more important to us than probably to any other nation of our size. I believe the Schedule "B" banks, with additional capital, will help us with some of that export financing.

June 28, 1984
Bank Act
The subject matter of Bill C-30 was before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs several weeks ago and, after hearing from witnesses that included the Inspector General of Banks, representatives from the Schedule "B" banks and representatives from the Trust Companies Association, the committee unanimously recommended that Schedule "B" banks be allowed to increase their capital base in their operations in Canada. As you are aware, the present Act limits the assets of Schedule "B" banks to 8 per cent of the total domestic assets of Canadian banks, as shown on a schedule prepared at the time that provision was enacted. The committee recommended that the 8 per cent limit specified in the legislation be lifted. This recommendation was based on the advice of the Inspector General of Banks that adequate control could be exercised by monitoring the deemed authorized capital of the Schedule "B" banks. However, when the Bill came through, it did not follow the recommendation but it raised the limit from 8 per cent to 16 per cent of the total domestic assets of all banks in Canada. That is the matter we are dealing with today.
We, of course, support Bill C-30 notwithstanding representations made to the committee. I understand the Canadian Bankers' Association supports the Bill, but some members of the CBA are not happy with it and would like to see this Act used as a lever against certain governments which will not grant reciprocal arrangements to our banks. There is another matter of the extra-territorial application of the law of a country against a Canadian bank where its court levied substantial fines for non-compliance. I understand that both these matters are the subject of discussion at a ministerial level and a resolution may be forthcoming. The request of the trust companies association was more direct. In effect they asked that we not pass this Bill until we have dealt with the trust companies, insurance companies and other financial institutions.
The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) has set in motion a committee of representatives from trust companies, insurance companies and other financial institutions to get their recommendations as to where they should fit in a new expanded picture of financial services. Certainly they want to broaden their base of operations to utilize their substantial cash flows. Some would alter their base so as not to be so dependent on one service. I agree that we should await the report and have discussion with the provinces so as to prevent the sort of jungle that was developing in the trust industry through unclear jurisdiction between federally and provincially chartered trust companies. Certainly there is a need to overhaul the legislation covering trust companies, insurance companies and other financial institutions. But while we want to see this matter dealt with on an urgent basis, we did not feel we should hold back this matter until we could deal with that larger question.
We are constantly being told that we must find a solution to higher interest rates. Perhaps competition is the best solution. We noted, when the trust companies ran mortgage rates up to
21 per cent and locked in the mortgages with unreasonable penalties for prepayment, that our chartered banks found themselves very liquid because of a low level of demand of commercial loans. They moved into the mortgage field, and the rates came tumbling down. The trust companies followed the bank led mortgage rates down the scale until housing starts increased and the sluggish real estate market came alive.
Perhaps what we are doing here today will have a ripple effect and with more money available in the market-place the rates may modify. Of course, the one action that may defeat this is if the Government of Canada moves to take a larger piece of the money market. In the past year it took about 75 per cent of the money available in the commercial market, thus making it difficult for those businesses which need term money to find adequate sources. It is plain for anyone to see that we need a more active equity market. Most of our businesses have equity problems. Many have serious cash flow difficulties as they adjust to the regime of low inventories on hand and "just-in-time" suppliers. We wish to co-operate and pass this Bill through all stages so that we may send it to the Senate which we hope will deal with it on a priority basis.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to speak fairly briefly on this matter in support of Bill C-30 to amend the Bank Act. I am certainly in general agreement with the idea that foreign banks be allowed to operate in Canada. Since we started this experiment some years ago with an initial 8 per cent ceiling, the experience has been good on balance. It has added competition in the banking field, of which I would like to give you a couple of illustrations.
The first that comes to mind is in the market for municipal loans. I know one or two municipalities in my area which wanted to borrow money but were not able to do so at competitive rates from the Canadian chartered banks. However, they were able to do so from foreign banks which were looking for customers and very interested in this particular market. Another example, on a geographic basis this time, is the market for loans to people in the oil and gas field, not necessarily the big operators, the Essos and the Domes- although some of the people who lent money to Dome will have wished they had not-however, the people in the shipping and other businesses ancillary to oil and gas exploration and production. When the National Energy Program killed the oil and gas business generally in western Canada, the banks, the headquarters or the regional offices of which were in Calgary, automatically came up with the idea that they were not to make loans to people who were dependent on the oil and gas industry because that industry was pretty sick as the result of Liberal Government policy. However, in the Beaufort Sea the opposite was happening. There the exploration business was booming, so to speak. But the operators there found themselves caught up in the same net because the banks with which they dealt had their offices in Calgary where things were going badly. A number of people and businesses in that area were unable to borrow money from the Canadian banks at reasonable rates, if at all, but they were able to borrow money from the foreign banks.
June 28, 1984

These are two illustrations of how the presence of foreign banks in the Canadian lending market can be an advantage to Canadian municipal taxpayers on the one hand and small and medium-sized businessmen on the other. I do not know where the 8 per cent limit came from. It was probably a compromise between 5 per cent and 10 per cent. I do not know where the 16 per cent comes from in this Bill but it seems to me to be a reasonable figure. I do not know why it is 16 per cent rather than 15 per cent or 17 per cent or 18 per cent. Perhaps that can be explained to us. But it would seem to be a reasonable figure. Recommendations have been made that there be no restrictions on them, that foreign banks be allowed to do as much business as they can get without any restrictions. I think it is prudent of us at the present time to continue with the experiment, so to speak, and raise that ceiling. However, we should have some ceiling there for the time being. Perhaps in a few years we could review the situation again and elevate the ceiling or remove it in its entirety.
Others have argued that there should be no restrictions. I have some doubts about that. Although the amount of lending which can be done and the amount of assets which a foreign bank can hold are controlled, I do not think we have quite as much control over a foreign subsidiary as we do over a Canadian bank. I am going to argue this in reverse order. A few years ago in the halcyon days the banks were making a lot of money and lending money to Third World nations. That was the business to be in. That was where the big profits were in banking. I remember the Canadian banks coming to the standing committee and arguing that the reserve requirements imposed upon them should be removed or reduced in respect of loans which Canadian banks were making overseas. When you start reducing the reserves which a bank is required to hold in respect of loans it has made, you are getting on shaky ground. Everyone knows that any system of fractional reserve banking is inherently insolvent. It is incumbent upon governments to prescribe certain mandatory reserves in respect of loans which have been made.
I suspect that the arguments which were made by Canadian banks at that time may well have come back to haunt them, because a lot of the loans that were made offshore prove to be of doubtful value today. The same argument which was used at that time by Canadian banks in their efforts to enhance their profitability overseas has probably been made by foreign banks in their country of origin. In certain circumstances there is a likelihood that foreign banks may be more shaky than our Canadian banks. To a certain extent we must protect the interest of Canadians who make deposits in these banks.
In view of the time and the amount of further business which the House has to do this evening, I think those are the main points which I would like to make. Although there are one or two small additional ones that I would like to make. I listened with interest to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). He was presenting the official NDP position. However, I hope that he was really trying to encourage the foreign banks to be more
Bank Act
competitive and to stay honest. I hope that was the intent of what he was saying.
In conclusion, I would like to register some concern about a matter which has already been alluded to by the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble) with regard to banks from countries which do not allow Canadian banks to operate in their countries. There ought to be reciprocity. If we allow banks from another country to operate in Canada, they ought to allow our banks to operate in their country. One of the biggest bugbears here is France. France will not allow our banks to operate in their country, but presumably we allow French banks to operate in Canada. I would encourage the Government, through the Department of External Affairs, to try to get agreements with countries whose banks we allow to operate in Canada so that they will allow our banks to operate in their country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) on debate.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to say a few words on this Bill which is to accommodate foreign banks. In this session we passed the Bank Act which allows foreign banks to work in Canada to the extent of 8 per cent of the Canadian market. A couple of years later a number of banks are close to reaching this level and we are suddenly going to accommodate them.
I have heard Members on both sides of the House talk about how much they abhor the control of the economy which foreign corporations have. If they could possibly get rid of it they would like to do so. Foreign business and financial institutions have such a hold on the country that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) admits daily that we are unable to do anything about the interest rates. Does the Government think that by adding foreign banks and increasing their control of the country we are going to improve that situation? At the moment, every time profits are made by a corporation in Canada they are either sent out of the country or used to buy up more of the country. Does the Government think that by increasing the amount of investment by foreign banks in the country and allowing them to get a greater control of the financial structure we will improve the situation?
Instead of giving foreign banks extra control over the economy, we should be giving the Government the structure to allow it to take much more control of the economy than the Minister of Finance suggests it is able to take at present. These foreign banks have suddenly decided that Canada is a very lucrative market which they can enter with very little investment. They can move their money in here and maintain one office to supply other banks or only large business corporations. As my colleague pointed out, we know that 70 per cent of the assets of foreign banks in Canada has been lent to corporations with yearly revenues in excess of $80 million. They are obviously going for the lucrative and large markets. That is not going to help the man on the street.

June 28, 1984
Bank Act
Canadian banks are in support of accepting foreign banks into the market. They have told us that they want this. They support this move because the "big five" are not really worried about this little bit of competition. It will give them a lever for investing in other countries. I suggest that we should perhaps study this. Is the ability of our so-called Canadian banks to invest in foreign countries going to help our economy? Is it going to put the man on the street to work? Will it help the unemployment situation at all? We are ignoring the basic requirements that would help the economy of this country and would make a difference to the man on the street. Instead, the Government and the Opposition are accommodating the large banks in Canada and the foreign banks, which really cannot be expected to make decisions that are in the best interest of Canadians. Consequently, we are opposed to this Bill and would rather not see it come forward. It does give an indication of the priority which the Official Opposition and the Government gives to the financial institutions of Canada which are in the process of selling us out to foreign countries as much as possible and will continue to do so.
Canadians must consider a government which will move away from large financial institutions. Perhaps that will be the issue in the next election; large corporations against the people. The Official Opposition and the Government will be led by leaders whose real responsibility is not to the people of Canada but to the large corporations in Canada that are closely connected to the foreign banks. It has been shown here this evening that both of those Parties support the take-over of Canada by foreign interests.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Questions or comments? Debate. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Guilbault in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Harold Thomas Herbert: Shall the Bill carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.
Bill reported.


Roy MacLaren: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Roy MacLaren: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to on division, Bill read the third time and passed.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was a disposition to move forward now with Bill C-24, but it appears that the report has not yet come down. Rather than begin now with Bill C-36, which is the other business we were to deal with tonight, I suggest that the House recess to the call of the Chair until the report is available to be tabled in the House by the chairman of the committee. I understand that that will be at approximately 7.30 p.m. Perhaps the House could take a 15-minute recess until the report is available for tabling.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that kind offer of the Parliamentary Secretary. We are anxious to deal with these matters. Bill C-24 is an important Bill.
I think the staff deserves a 15-minute break. They have been working very hard over a period of time and I appreciate that offer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there unanimous consent that the House recess to the call of the Chair?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, it is my estimation that the report will be available at 7.30. Perhaps we could recess to the call of the Chair and agree that there would be a five-minute bell to call Members back to the House at the time the report is prepared.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there consent for a five-minute bell?


Mr. Cook:: No, there is not consent to a five-minute bell. Rather than a five-minute bell, I would suggest that we bring the House back at eight o'clock.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point I wish to make is that if you ring the bell for five minutes everyone will think they will be coming back for a vote. Why do we not just agree to return at 7.30 and let it go at that?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think there is probably a consensus developing that if you were to return to the chair at a certain time and we would agree to a specific time, that is, 15 minutes hence, which would make it 7.32 p.m., the House will reconvene at that precise moment and we will try to get the word to those who are participating to be here. I think you would find agreement to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there agreement to this last proposal?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


SITTING SUSPENDED
[Stage Direction]
At 7.17 p.m., the sitting of the House was suspended.
June 28, 1984

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 7.36 p.m.
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a disposition or unanimous consent to revert to the tabling of reports of standing and special committees and to recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there unanimous consent to revert to the presentation of reports?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. Also I would like to table evidence on Bill C-24 with this report, as agreed.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, contrary to normal procedure, if you would seek unanimous consent, you would find that there is unanimous consent for us to receive the report now and to proceed with report stage and third reading of this Bill at this sitting tonight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there unanimous consent for the proposal just enunciated by the Parliamentary Secretary?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board) moved: 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, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: When shall the Bill be read the third time?
Financial Administration Act


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: By leave, now.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take part in the debate on third reading of Bill C-24 and to speak briefly about a Bill which has been changed through amendments that were worked out through the efforts of members of all Parties. Because of this agreement, it is clear that this Bill will be adopted by the time the House adjourns tomorrow.
The Bill, as amended, speaks highly indeed of what can be the effectiveness of our parliamentary process, especially committee stage, and of a willingness on the part of the Government, the Official Opposition and other Hon. Members to consider carefully and respond to the views expressed about the Bill, including those of witnesses at the committee and key people such as the Auditor General, those in the business community, the arts community and other interested groups like the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.
Mr. Speaker, the Government and the Opposition have worked together to make a practical and effective Bill, a Bill of which all Members may be proud. Our joint efforts in the course of this parliamentary process will result in the first major and successful update in more than thirty years of the legal framework that provides for control and accountability with respect to Crown corporations. That is no small achievement.
The purpose of Bill C-24 is to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the corporations' chief executive officers and boards of directors, of Ministers, the Government and Parliament, and to establish this updated legal framework for control and accountability of Crown corporations. Mr. Speaker, the Bill, including the amendments on which agreement was reached in committee, will provide that framework. I would now like to highlight very briefly the main amendments that were made.

There has been much discussion about the inclusion of the cultural corporations in the legislation in its original form. One of the major concerns expressed has been that from the point of view of the arts community, the legislation appeared to give too much authority over program priorities of the cultural corporations. Therefore, in response to these concerns, the Canada Council, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Arts Centre and the Canadian Film Development Corporation will not be covered by this Bill. It is the Government's intention to clarify its accountability framework for them and other cultural corporations, where necessary, through separate legislative measures.
In drafting this Bill, we intended that it would be binding on the Crown, and we obtained the view of the Department of

June 28, 1984
Financial Administration Act
Justice that this was the case. However, the Bill as amended will eliminate any uncertainty in this regard.
In view of the concern expressed about the special motion procedure for creating parent Crown corporations set forth in the original version of this Bill, the Bill as amended will provide that all parent Crown corporations would be created through Acts of Parliament, subject, of course, to the rules of the House. In this connection, it has been agreed that the Bill as amended would remove those provisions in certain pieces of existing legislation which allow a Minister to create Crown corporations, with the exception of the Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act and the Canada Ports Corporation Act, two Acts only recently adopted by Parliament. This change responds to a concern of the Auditor General.
It has always been the Government's contention through this Bill to have a strengthened role for the boards of directors of our Crown corporations and to set out clearly how they and the senior officers would be appointed and held accountable for the corporations' conduct of their affairs. In order to clarify this intention, the Bill as amended would provide that the Board of Directors would be appointed by the appropriate Minister with the approval of the Governor in Council. The chairman and the chief executive officer would be appointed by the Governor in Council, but only after the board of directors has been consulted by the appropriate Minister. Additionally, the Canada Post Corporation Act would be amended so that vice-presidents of that organization as well would be appointed by its board of directors.
The Bill as amended will provide that henceforth for all new parent Crown corporations, all officer appointments other than chairman and chief executive officers would be made by the board of directors. As well, the appropriate Minister, representing the sole shareholder, would be responsible for the appointment and removal of all non-officer directors, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. Furthermore, wording has been added to the Bill to specify sanctions for wilful neglect of duties by corporation officers.
Concerns were expressed about the role given to Ministers in the version of the Bill originally presented to this House. To respond to these concerns, a statement has been inserted in the Bill, the one that appears in the current Financial Administration Act that, "each crown corporation is ultimately accountable through the appropriate Minister to Parliament for the conduct of the affairs of the corporation." This amendment responds to another concern raised by the Auditor General.
Still another concern of the Auditor General was with respect to the criteria for the scheduling of the various Crown corporations. As a result, the Bill has been amended to provide that Crown corporations would be scheduled in Part II of Schedule C only if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, they operate in a manner generally independent of operating appropriations and in a competitive commercial environment. A section will be added which will state that no corporation can be added to Part I or Part II unless, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, that corporation would not more appropriately be placed in Schedule B.
The Bill has been amended to respond to concerns expressed by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. First, we have deleted from the Bill all provisions that would allow Treasury Board to authorize departures from the generally accepted accounting principles in the preparation of the financial statements of Crown corporations. Second, the auditor of a Crown corporation now would be granted qualified privilege similar to that provided by Section 166 of the Canada Business Corporations Act so that he or she would be protected from liability in respect of statements made fairly in the discharge of his or her duties. The auditor's report would be addressed to the appropriate Minister and it would include separate opinions on both financial and non-financial information.
In addition to the changes in the Bill that I have just highlighted, it has been changed by a number of other amendments of a technical nature which obviously the House would not expect me to describe in detail at this point in time.
To conclude, I would like to extend my thanks to all Members in the House who have participated in the debate on this Bill and in the development of amendments to turn it into what I believe Members of the House will agree is a very good piece of legislation. I would like to particularly extend my thanks to the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), chief spokesperson on Crown corporation policy for the Official Opposition. He has spoken out consistently and forcefully for an effective and workable Bill.
I want to recognize again the efforts of the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), my Parliamentary Secretary. The agreement on the amendments to the Bill and the working out of an agreement for a short time frame for its passage is to a large part a result of the efforts of these two Members. It shows the kind of co-operative activity that can be found in this House when it is operating at its best.
I want to again recognize the co-operative spirit in which the Official Opposition and other Members of this House have approached the matters of amendments and of the allocation of time to enable the Bill to pass before the House adjourns tomorrow. This Bill will put in place for the benefit of all Canadians an effective new framework for the control and accountability of these important corporate instruments of public policy. I commend this Bill to this House for its support in the interest of good administration of our Crown corporations and the over-all public interest.


Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his kind remarks. I rise to speak this evening on Bill C-24 as amended with mixed emotions. This will almost certainly be my last speech in the House of Commons before returning to private life. I must admit to a sense of satisfaction tinged with irony that my last speech will relate to this Crown corporations Bill.
I have spent a great deal of time and energy over the past year studying the subject of Crown corporations in my capacity of co-chairman of our Party task force on Crown corporations. I shared the chairmanship of that task force with
June 28, 1984

Senator Bill Kelly and we spent the last nine months studying most of the aspects of Crown corporations and how our new Government should address the problem.
Indeed, it is a major problem with which we must deal. After all, we are today talking about over 300 Crown corporations with assets in the neighbourhood of $70 billion and liabilities in the neighbourhood of $80 billion. They cost the taxpayers somewhere between $5 billion and $10 billion a year. It is a major problem, one with which this Government and our previous Government lived for the last ten years. I suppose we have lived with the problem for longer than that, but the problem has grown and certainly the number of dollars involved has increased over the last ten years.
Some of my colleagues know that I have often been frustrated and disenchanted with the role of back-bench Member of Parliament, frustrated and disenchanted with the lack of impact a Member can have on the issues that come before this House, whether they be great or small. I have learned to appreciate the wisdom of a gentleman by the name of Walter Bagehot who wrote in 1867 that a Member of Parliament must sacrifice not only his time, his labour and his money to be a Member of Parliament, but perhaps the greatest sacrifice of all is the sacrifice of his mind. I am therefore pleased to note that my colleagues and I on this side of the House at least played a major role in the improvement of Bill C-24 from the state it was in when it was initially introduced. After long and arduous discussions and negotiations, we on this side of the House proposed roughly 100 amendments, many of which were accepted by the Government and now form a part of the Bill that is before us.
One of the major amendments we were able to have accepted was the removal of clauses that would have allowed the Government to continue to set up new Crown corporations with little or no control by Parliament. We were able to enhance and clarify the role of the individual Minister. We took a significant step forward in creating ministerial accountability. After all, ministerial accountability is one of the key factors in coming to grips with the accountability of Crown corporations. We were also able to increase the amount and quality of information provided to Parliament.
Another important amendment attained by the Conservative Party was the protection for the unique and historic independence of our cultural organizations. The Canada Council, the NAC, the CBC and the Canadian Film Development Corporation will no longer fall under the jurisdiction of the legislation amended by Bill C-24. Since 1979, the Progressive Conservative Party has supported the concept of a separate cultural agencies Act, an Act which would set cultural agencies entirely apart from other Crown corporations. In his statement agreeing to exempt the cultural corporations, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) has committed the Government to that concept.
I am gratified that we were able to have that impact on the Bill, and the impact of the many other amendments which were reflected in the legislation. I only regret that we did not have time to do more, and that we were not allowed to have
Financial Administration Act
the same impact on the majority of Bills that came before this House, including many of the Bills with which I have been associated since I have been a Member of this House of Commons. It is reassuring to know that every once in awhile, the House of Commons does in fact work.
Do not misunderstand me. This is an imperfect Bill. I suppose one could say that to find a perfect Bill in an imperfect world is beyond human capacity. Nevertheless, this is an imperfect Bill. It goes only part way toward addressing the serious problems that have bedevilled Crown corporations. The process by which the Bill was prepared certainly left a lot to be desired.
As we look back over the last decade, we see a host of scandals in which Crown corporations were involved. We have seen studies done ad nauseam about what to do with Crown corporations. There have been royal commissions, commissions of inquiry, white papers, blue papers and previous Bills all the way back to 1972. Yet I must condemn the Government for waiting for over ten years until the dying days of this Parliament, and very likely the dying days of this Government, to table this complex and very difficult Bill. After waiting for ten years, the Government asks for passage of the Bill in only two months.
In my short time in public life and, as a matter of fact, in my private life as well, I must say that I have never seen anything in such a state of shambles as this Bill was when it came before the committee after second reading. The final package of amendments reviewed by the committee was almost two inches thick. Right up until the last moment, the Government was bringing in housekeeping, technical and other amendments. The last minute changes were so extensive that I understood it would take three days to print the Bill. It is a miracle that it could be printed in three days.
In its haste to move the Bill forward, the Government apparently tried to intimidate Crown corporations into not airing publicly their problems with the Bill and not appearing before the Parliamentary Committee.


Mr. Beatty:: Francis Fox gave the orders too.


John William Thomson: As I said, this is an imperfect Bill. It is a far cry from what we on this side think is necessary.
I am afraid to say that Bill C-24 will, I believe, cause a further bureaucratization of Crown corporations, something which I do not think is in the best interests of our attempt to bring Crown corporations under control. The Bill does not go far enough in so far as describing the role of the board of directors. I happen to believe that the board of directors has a very, very vital role to play in the control and management of Crown corporations. If they are not given anything to do, if they are not part of the chain of accountability, from the chief executive officer to the board of directors to the Minister, and if they are not allowed to function in a manner in which they can financially control that corporation, they will not be able to respect their position of responsibility.

June 28, 1984
Financial Administration Act
However, improvements have been made. While many of those changes are worthwhile, the Bill still confuses and obscures ministerial responsibility for Crown corporations. It confuses what the Lambert Commission referred to as the vital chain of accountability to Parliament. I am afraid that this legislation ignores many of the issues which we think Crown corporation legislation should address.
One of the most vital issues which is not addressed in the legislation-and I hope that a future Progressive Conservative government will come to grips with it-is the appointment of a chief executive officer. As long as the chief executive officer's appointment process is retained as a Prime Ministerial prerogative, instead of being an appointment which is made by the board of directors, the chief executive officer will never be accountable to the board of directors and the board of directors will never be able to hold that chief executive officer accountable. When that chain of accountability is broken, we cannot expect to receive the measure of control which I believe is necessary to protect Canadian taxpayers.
As well, the complex and contentious subject of privileges and immunities which are enjoyed by Crown corporations has not been dealt with.
Another very serious problem which I feel most strongly about is the creation of a standing committee of this House-I would prefer it to be a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons-to deal specifically with the subject of Crown corporations. As I said earlier when introducing my remarks, the area of Crown corporations is a huge one within the federal Government's domain. The standing committees of this House simply do not have the time to deal with the review of mandates of Crown corporations on a continuing basis. Crown corporations must have a review of their annual reports, operating plans, capital budgets and corporate plans. It is an immense undertaking for Parliament to monitor Crown corporations. There simply is not enough time for the existing standing committees to do that. If this Parliament is going to offer a measure of control on behalf of Canadian taxpayers, I feel very strongly that a standing committee of the House should be created.
With all the deficiencies in the Bill which I have indicated, why have we decided to let the Bill go through? The decision was certainly not easy. Many of my colleagues are still less than enthusiastic about the passage of this legislation in its present form. In so far as I am concerned, I had a good many anguished moments in committee and have had anguished moments since that time. We will pass this Bill because we realize that it is impractical to expect anything better at this time from this Government. It is impractical to think that it could prepare alternative legislation within the time it has left.
Second, much of what is good about this Bill stems from many of the initiatives which my colleagues and myself have taken on this side of the House. We were reluctant to see all of our efforts go for nothing.
Third, we did not want to send to Crown corporations another message after all these years that the passage of any Crown corporation legislation by Parliament was not possible. We did not want to confirm the impression that Crown corporations can sit in isolation, immune from review by Parliament. Further, we did not want to send a message to future governments, whether they be Liberal or Conservative, that the passage of even a half-hearted Crown corporation Bill was politically impossible.
Finally, having rescued the cultural organizations from Bill C-24, we wanted to entrench their separate status before the Government had a chance to change its mind. Therefore, reluctantly and with many misgivings, we have decided to let Bill C-24 pass.
Most of the real problems which Crown corporations face will have to wait for the advent of a new government which will be free from the legacy of the past, willing to take a hard look at the problems and possible solutions, and with the political will to be a vigilant and intelligent shareholder. All the legislation in the world can be written about Crown corporations, but we will never be able to come to grips with the problems without political will. It requires the political will of the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet to control and manifest a regime of proper accountability. I look forward to that day. I only regret that we missed that golden opportunity in Bill C-24. I also regret that I will not be here to see it happen. In the meantime, Bill C-24, such as it is, will have to do.
I would like to extend my thanks to the clerk and the people who worked so hard in committee. I think that thanks should go as well to some of the bureaucrats for their efforts and the time which they spent in the preparation of this Bill. Those who think that all of our bureaucrats are "nine to fivers" are operating under a great misapprehension.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my intervention on this Bill will be very brief, because I think the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson) said it all. I would like to begin by complimenting the Hon. Member for Calgary South and the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) who have by the process of negotiation come forth with a Bill which at least serves notice on Crown corporations that Parliament feels some responsibility for them and that in the future they will have to understand that their position is relative to Parliament's need for them. I feel we have gone on long enough with Crown corporations which have been given a mandate, have been organized and then have quickly forgotten their mandate and gone their own way to become organizations with their own ends in mind and with very little accountability to the Parliament of Canada.
I have really two points to make. First, the process which took place in this particular Bill needs to be looked at very closely by this Parliament. It is a process which we should try and emulate in many other Bills. We had put before us a bill
June 28, 1984

which had been created by the bureaucrats, by the Minister, the Deputy Minister and had gone down through the system. It had behind it the prestige of the department and the people who had created it. Only the circumstance of this particular situation allowed us to take a look at this Bill in a way which made it possible for the opposition to have some kind of an input. If there had not been the leadership race, if there had not been the time limitation on the Government to get the Bill through, it may not have been the case that the ideas of the Opposition were accommodated.
I strongly believe that the process which was forced on the Government because of this Bill is the kind of process which would make the best use of parliamentarians, because it allowed this Parliament to recognize the quality and ability of all Hon. Members of Parliament to make a contribution to legislation instead of just government Members and the bureaucrats behind that Government. I believe it is very important that this kind of procedure be incorporated into the traditions of Parliament at some time in the future for the good of Canada.
Another point I want to make is that for years this Government and other Governments have tried to establish some kind of accountability for Crown corporations and have, to a great extent, failed. This Bill may have warts. I am not going to go through the shortcomings which we suggest are in this Bill. However, as I mentioned before, it will serve notice on Crown corporations that Hon. Members on all sides of this House are not going to let them go their own way in the future. By passing this Bill we are saying that from now on we want to be sure that the mandate which is given to a Crown corporation is adhered to. We want to be sure that the expenditures of money by Crown corporations are made at the behest of Parliament, not at the behest of a member of Cabinet or the Cabinet itself. This Bill does not do this entirely, but we are serving notice that this is the direction in which we want to go. I feel it is a very important Bill in that way. It does not go far enough, Mr. Speaker, but it does go in the right direction.
I have to agree entirely with the Hon. Member for Calgary South, that even if we put an absolutely perfect Bill in place- which this Bill is not-we would still require the political will of the Government of the day to have the kind of accountability from Crown corporations which this Parliament has indicated it wants. After almost five years on the Public Accounts Committee, I know that Hon. Members of this House, regardless from which Party they come, do want accountability of Crown corporations. The process we went through in getting at least a portion of that accountability is a valuable experience for this House which we would extend possibly to other Bills. I hope whichever Government is in power after the next election it will take a look at this Bill and see that there are still some things which are not the way they should be and change them, so that eventually those Crown corporations which are already in place, as well as future Crown corporations, will be instruments of public policy and will be controlled by the Parliament of Canada for the people of Canada.
Financial Administration Act
Crown corporations have a role to play in the economy of Canada, but that role is only worthwhile if they are instruments of the Government and controlled by this Parliament. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I say to you that we will be supporting this Bill.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose to speak at length tonight. I believe there was an understanding that we would have about 20 minutes on each side with only two speakers for the Official Opposition and the Government. I believe my Minister has taken up almost all of the time which would have been available to me.
I just want to say how pleased I am to see this Bill finally come out of committee and get to third reading tonight. I believe it is an important piece of legislation which will have far-reaching implications for the Crown corporations which daily affect the lives of Canadians. We only have to think about Petro-Canada, Air Canada, CNR or any of the other commercially competitive Crown corporations, as well as the many other corporations which serve the needs of Canadians on behalf of the Government of Canada, to realize that this Bill has very far-reaching effects.
I want to pay tribute, as did the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray), to the kind of co-operation which existed between Hon. Members of the Opposition and the New Democratic Party, especially the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crom-bie), the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), and the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hov-debo), because without that kind of co-operation in moving and dealing with amendments at committee stage, and agreeing to work long hours all of this week, we obviously could never have moved this Bill out of committee late this morning and into the House tonight. I believe we had over 100 speakers on second reading in the seven days of debate. Therefore, since March 16, when this Bill was introduced, it has been a long and tortuous period of time.
I also want to pay tribute to the Clerk of the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee who worked all through last night on the amendments to the Bill. I also understand that some 12 or 15 people on the task force from the Treasury Board have been working for over eight or nine months on this Bill, many of whom are in the gallery tonight. As well, the Department of Justice officials worked through the night last night on the amendments.
I believe this Bill, with the amendments we have added, really meets many of the ideas which the Government had in mind in its original introduction. There have been a lot of compromises and the President of the Treasury Board and the Government have accepted many amendments. I think in all cases we are agreed that we have strengthened the Bill and the role of Parliament, both in the creation of Crown corporations and in the supervision of budgets and so on. I just want to express my appreciation to all those who have made the passage of this Bill possible. I think it will really meet the

June 28, 1984
Financial Administration Act
needs of Canadians regarding these important institutions of the federal Government.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to say that I came here tonight not to bury the Bill but to praise it. That is a tremendous change from the second reading debate which was marked by a good deal of very deep and divergent feelings on both sides of the House. Frankly, I did not expect that I would have the opportunity to say that I believe we have a Bill which is vastly improved and which will improve considerably on the status quo for Canadians.
Going back to 1979 and the days of the Clark Government,
1 had the responsibility for drafting legislation which would serve as an omnibus Bill to bring control and accountability to Crown corporations. What was so striking to me at that time and remains so today is the tremendous range, power and cost of Crown corporations which extend into virtually every aspect of Canadian life. It was made apparent to me that these Crown corporations, many of which had served useful purposes at the time they were set up, and continue to do so, had in many instances moved well beyond the purposes intended by Parliament. In some instances Parliament and perhaps even the Government were not aware of even the existence of some Crown corporations. Certainly it became apparent that parliamentary and governmental controls were weak or non-existent in many instances. It was essential that legislation be put in place that would vastly improve the quality of the relationship between Crown corporations and the government and people of Canada.
I want to make reference to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson). As he said, what we heard tonight was his last speech as a Member of the House of Commons, unless through some measure which would be of great surprise to all of us we found ourselves back here in the fall. I had the pleasure of working with the Hon. Member and I can tell you that he is a tremendously diligent and hard working, conscientious and principled person. The House will be poorer for the fact he has decided not to stand for re-election. He has another quality, one of modesty. One of the things he did not do was to take credit for the fairly dramatic improvements which have taken place in this Bill as a direct result of his efforts and those of Members on this side under his leadership.
When the Hon. Member for Calgary South co-chaired the PC task force on Crown corporations with Senator Bill Kelly, they launched an energetic schedule which was designed to develop a set of principles which would be useful for a PC Government or the present government in trying to come to grips with the control and accountability of Crown corporations. As one who has seen the results of that task force, I can tell you that is one of the finest pieces of work ever to have been done by a group of parliamentarians, certainly in the 12 years in which I have been in Ottawa. The report speaks volumes about the conscientiousness of the Hon. Member.
However, what speaks equally well of his work are the dramatic improvements made in this Bill as a direct result of his leadership. The Hon. Member is a very modest man, but I think I can say this is a good day for Parliament because of the Hon. Member's leadership. We have been able to remove provisions from this Bill which would have allowed the Government to do an end run around Parliament. If the Bill as originally drafted had passed, we would likely never again have seen the Government come to Parliament with a special act to incorporate a new Crown corporation. There were easier measures which would have allowed them to put it through Parliament with virtually no study or debate. It is a victory for the taxpayers of Canada because we have had better controls placed on Crown corporations to ensure that their financial management is conducted in a more business-like, sane and rational manner. The changes improved upon both the original draft and upon the status quo. That, again, is a victory for the Hon. Member for Calgary South and for my colleagues.
It is a victory as well for the Progressive Conservative Party. Under the leadership of our colleague from Calgary South, we fought hard to have amendments made which would make this bill infinitely better than what it would have been if the Government had been able to force it through in its original state. I think the Hon. Member, as he prepares to leave the House of Commons, can take considerable satisfaction in his work.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: He leaves us as well with a commitment. The position in which my Party finds itself tonight is that we have a Bill infinitely preferable to what it would have been if we had not fought this fight. No question about that. If the Government had all the time in the world and all the numbers to get its way, then the Bill would not have been what it is today. He has given us a much better Bill. He has also put us in a position where we have gone part of the way towards achieving the goals he set out as chairman of the PC task force on Crown corporations. There is more work to be done, as he pointed out. In many ways, the Bill is deficient. One of the things he did not mention would be the controls on subsidiary corporations. We should have had a better definition as well of the implications of agent of Her Majesty status and the immunities and privileges that Crown corporations claim on the marketplace.
Notwithstanding the fact the Bill is flawed, we have moved well along the way and we now have a vehicle in place where, if there is a PC Government following the next election, we can make the amendments to bring the Bill to the stage where it is consistent with what we have recommended to the Canadian people and Parliament. That will be a considerably less time consuming process for this Parliament and the people of Canada than it would have been had we had to reinvent the wheel. That in itself is to the credit of the Hon. Member and he can take considerable satisfaction from that. He will be able to see his efforts continuing long after he has left this place.
June 28, 1984

I am pleased by another amendment made to this Bill. Wearing my hat briefly as the joint chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, I know that my co-chairman, Senator John Godfrey, would also be pleased to see that the rights and position of that committee have been respected as a result of the amendments made to this Bill. That is positive. I am pleased as well that the traditional arm's length relationship between the Government and the cultural corporations, which is so essential if they are to preserve their integrity and if there is to be any confidence in the ability of the Canada Council to function free of government manipulation and interference, has been maintained. That is a significant victory. In addition, one of the great concerns Members on this side have had has been with the creation of the Canada Development Investment Corporation. If the new leader of the Liberal Party decides to dissolve the House after the swearing in on Saturday, we will have achieved a major victory in that the CDIC will not have be forced through Parliament. A new government will have to be seized with the issue of what to do with this massive holding company which has tremendous scope to interfere in virtually all aspects of commerce in Canada. From the vantage point of Members on this side of the House, that in itself is a very significant victory again.
This Bill has had provisions included in it that ensure that the passage of this Bill in no way means the Government will not have to worry about coming to Parliament with specific legislation if it hopes to have CDIC recognized and appropriations going directly to the parent corporation.
I do not want to go on at great length, because the Parliamentary Secretary indicated there was a disposition in the House to act quickly. I want to acknowledge the flexibility shown by the President of the Treasury Board, and I might also single out the Parliamentary Secretary himself. His genial good humour, even in times of considerable disagreement was very helpful in keeping lines of communication open and ensuring that this sort of agreement could be reached. I think he deserves credits for doing that.
I would also like to pay tribute to my colleague from Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo). During the time he has served on the Public Accounts committee, and also during his time on this committee, he has demonstrated that he has a genuine desire to see proper controls placed on Crown corporations to ensure that the rights of the taxpayers of Canada and the rights of Parliament are protected and enhanced.
My colleagues have mentioned other people to whom thanks should go. I would like to mention a couple of them. One of them is Mr. Donald Gracey. I first met Mr. Gracey when I was sworn in as Minister of State for the Treasury Board in 1979. I inherited Mr. Gracey who was the Chairman of the Crown corporations task force. At that time he was a senior official in the Privy Council office. It was largely as a result of his efforts that Bill C-27 was drawn up so rapidly and was able to be presented to Parliament within a matter of days of the
Financial Administration Act
Government meeting the House for the first time. Mr. Gracey and many of the members of the Crown corporations task force have moved on to other areas and are not able to see the culmination of their efforts to date. It was those people, with their commitment dating back to over a decade in some cases, who laid the groundwork for any progress which has been made since. Mr. Gracey served both as a consultant to the P.C. Crown corporations task force and also as a consultant to Members on this side of the House as the Bill went before committee. He served us extremely well. We are tremendously grateful to the contributions he has made and tremendously proud to have been able to work with him.
There are others whom I cannot mention tonight. They know who they are. If it had not been for their efforts and their diligence over the years in wanting to see good legislation passed, and fighting against tremendous obstacles to have legislation brought forward which would give some element of control and accountability to ensure that the abuses, scandals and problems which we have seen over the course of the past 15 or 20 years come to an end, there would be no way that we could stand where we do today. Even though they cannot be publicly acknowledged, they have certainly laid a foundation which is essential.
A Progressive Conservative Government will honour their commitment. It will complete the work which has been begun. Their efforts will not be lost or dissipated as a result of having a measure which goes only three-quarters of the way. They deserve to see Parliament passing legislation which does the whole job. Taxpayers, and my colleague from Calgary South deserve to see the whole job being done.
I will not go on at any greater length. I simply want to say that I am pleased to be able to support the Bill at this stage. It is a significant achievement. I want to underscore my thanks to the Member for Calgary South for his leadership. On behalf of my colleagues and I, I would sincerely like to wish him well as he goes on to other pursuits. We have valued his counsel, leadership and friendship.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed. ******


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unless there is unanimous consent to dispense with the normal time delay for report stage of Bill C-36; we would not be able to proceed at this time. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and there is a disposition that we should move on at this time with report stage of Bill C-36 and move on to third reading expeditiously.

June 28, 1984
Interest Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


INTEREST ACT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Interest Act, as reported (without amendment) be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, if this Bill were given its proper title, it would be called the Regulations Bill. By regulation the Government intends to allegedly correct some of the difficulties faced by people who have approached a lender for the purpose of prepaying a mortgage. If you examine the Bill in detail you will find in Clause 6:
Whenever the amount of principal money expressed to be secured by a mortgage on real property given after the coming into force of this section is greater than such amount as is prescribed by regulation,-
I think it is appropriate to ask why the Government has decided not to disclose exactly what the principle amount should be. It is also appropriate to make that same inquiry with respect to the provisions of Clause 7(1) as they presently appear in the Act. Under Clause 7(1), as amended, we find, among other things that:
-no interest is chargeable, payable or recoverable on the principal money unless the mortgage contains a statement in a form prescribed by regulation showing-
A number of things which are contained in the Act follow. I would have thought that we could have had a schedule attached to this Bill showing the prescribed form. I would also think that the information in Clause 7(1 )(b) might well have been spelled out in the Bill itself. The Section would now read:
-no charge within such classes of charges prescribed by regulation for the purposes of this paragraph is chargeable, payable or recoverable unless the mortgage contains, in the form and manner prescribed by regulation-
We must remember that this Bill was allegedly designed to accomplish a very simple and specific purpose. The purpose was to permit mortgagors to prepay their mortgages, coming up with a figure which they could well understand since the majority of mortgagors are not solicitors but are average individuals in the country who, in large measure, desire to terminate the payments on mortgages secured on their own personal residences. Why is it, therefore, that we have these complicated, convoluted provisions which, I must confess, use every bit of imagination of anyone reading them to understand.
Let us continue on with provisions of the Bill. We find once again that Clause 7(3) on page 3 of the Bill states that paragraph 1(a) does not apply if the information referred to in subparagraphs l(a)(i) and l(a)(ii) was, prior to the execution
of the mortgage, disclosed in a form, once again, prescribed by regulation.
Clause 7(4) provides that paragraph 1(Z?) does not apply with respect to any particular charge within such classes of charges as are prescribed by regulation for the purposes of that paragraph if, prior to the execution of the mortgage, the amount of that charge was disclosed in a form prescribed by regulation.
Then we come to what is surely the most troublesome clause of this Bill. Under what will be amended Clause 11.1 of the Bill, Section 10 and 11 do not apply in such circumstances as are prescribed by regulation.
What this Bill proposes to do is repeal, by regulation, a specific provision of a statute. I submit that that is a process which is not recognized by the law. Parliament enacted Sections 10 and 11 of the Interest Act. Parliament is now providing that those sections may be restricted or eliminated in such circumstances as regulations may require. The proper course for the House is to delete, amend or change sections of existing statutes and not delegate that right to the Governor in Council. That is exactly the process that the Government is undertaking now. It is delegating the right to pass laws and amend existing statutes to the Governor in Council. I submit that that process has no legal foundation. It is improper and beyond the scope of any authority granted to the Governor in Council.
I must say that in the event that we look at the provisions of Section 12.2 as they would be amended, a section which allegedly provides the relief that this Bill is supposed to provide to those people who wish to prepay their mortgages, we find spelled out exactly what the mortgagor must do in order to obtain a discharge. He must pay a number of amounts. The amounts spelled out in the Bill are "(a), the amount of principle money due at the time of the tendering of the payment or such lesser amount of principle money as is allowed by regulation". What are they talking about? When a draftsman prepares such a specific insert in a statute, what does the ordinary home owner calculate as being the principal amount of the mortgage that he must pay when he tenders a payment for the discharge of his mortgage? While he can determine exactly what is the principal amount due under the mortgage, what is this other lesser amount of principal money as is allowed by regulation?
He also must pay the interest on the principal amount. That is the normal, logical and sensible procedure that has taken place since mortgages were invented.
Now comes the crunch. The other amount he must pay is the prepayment charge provided by the regulations, calculated in the manner prescribed by regulation or any other agreed or prepaid charge if it is less than the prepayment charged provided for by the regulations. I do not know what that is and I want to say that neither will the home owner who tenders an amount for payment know what that means.
Obtaining a discharge of a mortgage is a very important facet in the lives of home owners. Let us take the case of
June 28, 1984

someone providing a cheque to a mortgage. The process requires that the cheque must be certified because they will not take an ordinary cheque unless it happens to be with the lending institution on whom the cheque is drawn. If that cheque is $10 too little, that person is still obliged to pay the interest and the mortgagee can refuse to accept payment of that cheque. That individual can go to court and argue that he should have had that discharge because he tendered his payment. If the payment is not in the right amount, interest will run on the principal amount of that outstanding obligation. By the time that individual gets to court and the case is heard two years later, interest will be running on the amount that was not accepted as a proper payment to discharge a mortgage.
Surely some element of certainty must be available for the average citizen who tenders an amount to obtain a discharge of his mortgage. Will this Bill accomplish that purpose? Absolutely not! I do not know what amount that is and neither does the Government House Leader know what that amount would ever be.


Yvon Pinard: What about tabling in the courts?


John Albert Gamble: What we have done as a result of the amendment which will change Section 10 is provide for the elimination of the one thing that the citizen could look to, perhaps with some judicial assistance in connection with what a five-year mortgage is, which is knowing what three months interest by way of bonus discharge meant. That was easy to calculate. The principal amount was spelled out and one could get a computer print-out of the exact calculation. He could calculate the three months' interest bonus and tender that payment, together with the interest due up to the time of tendering. He was entitled to a discharge of his mortgage. He also had to pay a discharge fee which was required. Now he will never know what this amount is because it is a prepayment charge provided for by regulation.
This whole Bill is a fraud. It is pretending to remedy a recognized problem in society but does not do that. The prepayment charge provided for by regulation may be, if the Governor in Council decides, interest at the fixed rate under the mortgage until the end of the term. The House is asked to pass this Bill which leaves in the hands of the Governor in Council the right to determine what that amount is. There is no limitation placed upon the Government. I would be interested to hear the comments of the Government House Leader. It may indeed be the whole amount of interest until the end of the term because we do not know.
Even if the Government was to file the proposed regulations under this Bill with the House today, they could be changed tomorrow. That is the magic of regulations: they do not have to be brought before this place. Parliament will never again see them. The Government alone will decide what the amount is to be. We are asked to pass a Bill which is supposed to provide relief for Canadian home owners. This Bill does not provide that relief. It is an attempt to employ phraseology that is loose and inconclusive. It smokescreens the problems.


SO 152-46
[Stage Direction]
Business of the House
With the coming election, I know that Government members will be able to travel throughout the country and say that they have amended the Interest Act so that now there is a method for prepaying a mortgage. It may cost Canadians twice as much as it would have otherwise, but nobody knows. I want to say that this type of legislation which the Government has presented does not do justice to the House and to the duties and obligations imposed upon the members in this place.

Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand my colleague has completed his speech. My point of order concerns House business for tomorrow. We will be dealing with the following Bills in the order enumerated: Bill C-50, C-47, C-56, C-51, the Saltfish Bill, which does not have a number as yet-that Bill will be introduced tomorrow-Bill C-54, S-ll and C-53.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What is Bill C-53.


Yvon Pinard: I will talk to the Opposition House Leader about it afterward.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Before Saturday if possible.


Yvon Pinard: Except for Bill C-53, Mr. Speaker, we have had consultations and that is the package for tomorrow. For my hon. friend's information, Bill C-53 is the Mingan Archipelago. I am told consultations took place and it looks very good. There is a Bill, a miscellaneous statute, which has no number yet. Notice will be given tomorrow, the Bill will be introduced and passed without debate. I think that is enough. This is the list of some nine Bills. I hope they will get through before two o'clock in order to allow the Senate to deal with them.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting list. I look forward to the debate tomorrow. The two o'clock estimated time of arrival at the end of that list is one which I hope one can achieve, but one gets carried away with some of those important pieces of legislation which the Government has brought forward when one has speeches welling from one's bosom, wanting to get the benefit of speaking on such Bills as the Archipelago Bill and so on. I have mentioned the Anomalies Bill to the Government House Leader. I do not anticipate any particular problem with that. I would like to give notice to the Government House Leader that possibly one of our Members has a few remarks to make on this Bill because it is a technical Bill. We will face that very substantial list tomorrow at the appropriate time and see what progress can be made.

June 28, 1984
Interest Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) is rising. Is the Hon. Member rising on the same point of order or is he rising for debate?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on debate.


INTEREST ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the Motion of Mr. Gray, that Bill C-36, an Act to Amend the Interest Act, be now read a third time and do pass.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-36. I listened with a considerable amount of interest to the previous speaker. I find myself agreeing with him to a large extent, which surprises me. But nevertheless the arguments he made were more than deserving.
In the last several days I have received a number of phone calls and letters from people asking me when Bill C-36 will pass, giving them a significant amount of interest relief on their mortgages. An impression has been created for some reason or other that Bill C-36 will provide lower interest rates and relief for mortgage holders, or people negotiating a new mortgage from high interest rates or, as we have seen in the last few days, the escalating interest rates. I have had to tell people that that is not the case, that this Act to amend the Interest Act has nothing to do with assisting them with their mortgages. It will not do anything to make life easier for people or enable them to afford a home mortgage during these difficult times. When you think of what it is going to do, I believe the Government has misled the people of Canada.
I recall on many occasions in the House when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) would stand in his place and say that as far as he was concerned a three-month penalty clause on a mortgage being renegotiated to take advantage of a low interest rate as the rates came down was more than appropriate. The Minister felt that that was quite all right, and if we were having any difficulties with lending institutions which were not co-operating that we should send our cases to him and he would take care of these matters. What his term "take care of it" meant was that "I will do nothing except send along your letter to the appropriate financial institution", and whatever the institution decides to do will be appropriate for the Minister of Finance and the Government of Canada. I am afraid that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Canadians had their hopes lifted in the belief that the Minister of Finance was serious in what he said and that the Government of Canada was prepared to act, only to have those hopes dashed as a result of the phoney and quite inappropriate comments of the Minister.
In essence, what this Bill does is make it clear to people what it will cost them to prepay their loans. I am not certain
how this will assist anybody or how it will make life easier for anybody who has a mortgage at 14 per cent or 15 per cent. Perhaps we might be lucky enough to have interest rates drop to 10 per cent or 11 per cent, and therefore be able to renegotiate a mortgage to take advantage of improved times. But this Bill does nothing for that situation.
This Bill misrepresents to the people of Canada what the Government is doing. The Government is attempting in this pre-election period to give the impression that we are amending the Interest Act to assist people who have home mortgages or who would like to take out a home mortgage. The Bill will do virtually nothing for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who find themselves pressed up against the wall as a result of today's high interest rates. It will not bring any relief to any of those people. The Bill will not assist anybody in terms of being a home owner. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the Bill is a bit of a sham.
I, for one, am looking forward to an election campaign when people in an assembly will say to a Liberal candidate: Surely, the Government has taken action to provide assistance from these high interest rates. As a matter of fact, people will say: I remember Bill C-36 being introduced and passed in the House of Commons. Then I will be able to pull this Bill out of my hip pocket and say to them: Here is the Act. It does absolutely nothing to assist you. It does absolutely nothing to bring relief to people suffering from high mortgage interest rates. The Bill does nothing to encourage people to take out a home mortgage today knowing that rates will likely escalate in the months ahead. The Bill is a sham. It is an attempt to mislead the people of Canada. It is an attempt to misinform Canadians and to give them a false sense of hope and security.
In order to allow other people time to make some comments, I will bring my remarks very quickly to a close. Let me say that we had the opportunity in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to see some very intensive gruelling questioning by a number of Members of various officials in an effort to find out how this Bill would benefit Canadians. After a considerable period of intensive questioning by various officials such as Mr. King, others, and the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren), we found out nothing. What we found was that this Bill would not assist the average Canadian citizen in bringing any relief from high interest rates. What came out of the committee hearing, in an effort to prepare ourselves for today, was the fact that the Government introduce a Bill to try to respond to the criticisms being levied against it that high interest rates were causing concern to home owners and to potential home owners. This Bill was an attempt to deflect some of that criticism and to say: Yes, we have passed a Bill. It is called an Act to Amend the Interest Act. And the intention to bring some relief. It has done anything but that, Mr. Speaker. It has not brought any relief. It is a sham. I believe I should now call it nine o'clock.
June 28, 1984



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
\ English)
A Motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, this adjournment debate concerns the question of railway freight rates for alfalfa products shipped by railway containers, specifically by Tirol Dehydrators of Tilley and Rolling Hills in southern Alberta. The reference is my question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) on May 29, 1984, as reported at page 4181. This is the second occasion on which I have brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of Transport.
I should like to give a brief review of the developments in this issue involving the shipment of dehydrated alfalfa cubes in containers to Japan. As a result of a favourable recommendation emerging from Bill C-155 last year, that is the Crow debate, alfalfa products were recognized as a specialty crop and became eligible for the new so-called Crow rate, effective January 1, 1984. Prior to this date all such alfalfa products paid full commercial freight rates for railway hopper cars, boxcars or containers. The Minister of Transport personally supported recognition of alfalfa as a specialty crop. Regardless of this new recognition, railways continued to charge commercial rates because the product was being moved in containers rather than in boxcars or hopper cars.
Following my first question last January, the Minister requested the CTC to instruct railways to use the authorized, lower new Crow rate for container shipments, and apparently the railways complied. However, in May the railways applied to the CTC for additional surcharges of $400 for 40-foot containers and $241 for 20-foot containers, retroactive to January 1, 1984. The CTC rejected these surcharges on May 23.
During June, this month, the railways persisted and informed Tirol that they intended to charge a lower $230 surcharge for containers effective August 1, 1984, when the new crop year begins. At this stage railways were still trying to increase their freight charges, even though they were told twice not to do so by the CTC.
Also this month the railway indicated that they will go to court, probably next October, for authority to charge demurrage fees on alfalfa and all other new specialty crops included in the Western Grain Transportation Act. We should note that original Crow crops did not have demurrage charges since they were protected by Order in Council. It would seem that the new specialty crops were never added to that Order in Council list. There is also an additional "positioning charge" now being
Adjournment Debate
imposed by the railways. If the shipping customer fails to pay the positioning charge of $253 and $127, for the two sizes of containers, a shortage of containers develops-one pays or goes short. The only positive development in this alfalfa saga is that satisfactory minimum tonnage limits have now been resolved for both west and east container movements.
In my question of May 29 to the Minister of Transport, I made the blunt statement that "The railways are obviously playing games here". The Minister concurred with my comments. Surely it is now appropriate for the CTC to rule that alfalfa products as a new specialty crop come under the authority of the Western Grain Transportation Act, not under the Railway Act. It seems so obvious that the railways are deliberately going out of their way to circumvent not only the details of the new Crow agreement but, perhaps more importantly, the spirit of this new commodity approach that had such positive and enthusiastic support during the Crow debate last year by all on the standing committee, especially by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy).
Tirol Dehydrators are presently in a serious quandary, resulting from an improper surcharge bill that totalled $336,000, and have found it prudent to drastically reduce their Japanese shipments from around 11,000 tonnes to about 500 tonnes per month, and the competition in the United States is picking up the difference. Tirol Dehydrators in southern Alberta are experienced and competent, with over eight years of trading with Japan. Their management team of Alex Chrumka and Ike Schroder deserve something much better than this railway runaround.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Eva Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: I am pleased with this opportunity to reply to the question put by the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave). I can inform the Hon. Member that the surcharge applied to containers in the rate schedule has not been approved by the Canadian Transport Commission. The railways are now submitting the appropriate schedule.
We must not forget that Section 51 of the Western Grain Transportation Act does allow for rates that differ from those applicable to movement of grain by box cars or hopper cars, but that any increase allowed under the section cannot be retroactive. Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, read Secton 51 of the Western Grain Transportation Act.
51. The Commission may, by order, prescribe the amount by which a rate applicable to a movement of grain by means of railway cars other than box cars, hopper cars or shipper supplied tank cars may differ from the level provided by section 43, but in no case shall that amount exceed the level that, in the opinion of the Commission, is necessary in order to reflect the difference in costs.
It is therefore up to the Canadian Transport Commission to justify any surcharge that is, or may be, applied pursuant to Secton 51 of the Act.

June 28, 1984
Adjournment Debate


TRADE-TEXTILE AND CLOTHING IMPORTS-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROTECT JOBS
Mr. Claude Tessier (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Regan) to explain and reconfirm his answer in the House that the Celanese plant in Coaticook is not modern enough and worse, that polyester imports do not come from countries where prices are lower than they are in Canada, and that we must develop modern and competitive plants, something Celanese failed to do in Coaticook, which has only eighty modern looms out of a total of 801. I am saying this because there is a tendency to put all the blame on the Government, and also because failing to counter often gratuitous charges would not only mean admitting the Government is wrong, but also discourage other textile workers and employers who have been, or will be, doing what must be done to maintain the textile sector, which can and must be kept as a viable and even a dynamic and stable industry. I therefore insist that we look at the facts, and if we do, we shall see that part of the responsibility lies with the industry. Personally, I believe we must preserve our textile industry, and I believe it can be done.
Mr. Speaker, it is therefore vital that the Minister establish exactly what the facts are, so that workers in Coaticook will be told the truth, and we must also provide reassurances for other textile manufacturers who are anxious to adjust to market requirements with plants that are modern and truly competitive. This is particularly important, because what is involved here is the political will of the Government of Canada and also the new decisions the Government will have to make to act in a manner consistent with the extended mandate of the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board.
The Government has already made it clear that the textile, clothing and footwear industries and the jobs they provide were very important, but also that adjustments were needed to guarantee a market and especially to provide guarantees within a normal national and international market situation, without undue and costly artificial intervention by the Government itself. The textile problem is a complex one, even textile workers realize this-but in Coaticook, they are no longer willing to stand up for an industry they kept going because of their sacrifices, because today, they realize that all their efforts have gone down the drain, now the company wants to reorganize or owing to strictly financial considerations such as maximum profits, which ignore the fact that people in a community depend on the industry for jobs. It makes matters even worse when we have workers like those in Coaticook who have reached maximum productivity, at a time when the company should have adjusted its technology to be truly competitive.
Mr. Speaker, I would, however, like to note the generosity of a number of Celanese executives, who wanted to offer workers some kind of compensation by giving them the plant building,
which is certainly a considerable advantage for the Town of Coaticook which may, in turn, use the building to attract industry and so replace the jobs that were lost. Before turning over a new page, however, I want those workers who gave the best years of their lives to the Celanese plant in Coaticook, and younger workers who were already applying their skills in the plant to be fully and accurately informed about what is happening in their industry.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of these comments is not to point the finger of guilt at another party, it is to ensure that all parties concerned, especially the workers, have access to the same facts when accepting a decision that has become inevitable. These workers cannot be allowed to be the victims of such a decision. All responsible parties in Coaticook must be committed to providing alternative solutions, involving the co-operation and approval of the workers, in order to preserve their economic stability and to find new jobs as necessary.
To avoid giving workers the impression that they are just pawns in an industrial chess game, I think the solution to their problem lies in dialogue and understanding, and they are entitled to full information. To me, it is the only way to create the atmosphere of trust that is a prerequisite for finding a solution to the problem.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary, speaking for the Minister who knows the industry and its present and future requirements, inform the House what other reasons there were besides those given to justify closing the Celanese plant in Coaticook? In other words, to what extent is Celanese justified in putting the blame on imports alone, and should the company not admit that its reluctance to invest is now obliging it to reconsider its own priorities for achieving maximum profits, and thus to reorganize, restructure and even relocate, while turning an almost blind eye to the present and the past?


Mr. Rene Cousineau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Tessier) for his interest in this matter after Celanese Canada announced the closing of its Coaticook plant. The Minister and his officials share the concern of the Hon. Member about the economic impact and the consequences of that closedown. According to our information, the company took that decision with a view to consolidating its operations in Drummondville so as to cut costs, improve efficiency, use much more modern equipment, rationalize production and produce more, something which Celanese Canada feel will make the company more competitive.
When the company explained the reasons for closing, Mr. Speaker, they said that it was due to imports of similar products from developed countries, meaning the United States and Japan, not from Korea or Taiwan which are considered as underdeveloped countries. I hope that the expectations of the company will materialize so that it will be in a better competitive position against import products which come from trade
June 28, 1984

partners, as I said a moment ago. I might add that the Government has an assistance program under which the employees which unfortunately have been laid off will be retrained in other fields of specialization.


BILINGUALISM-EDUCATION OF IMMIGRANT CHILDREN. (B) NATIVE INDIAN CHILDREN-ACCESS TO ABORIGINAL LANGUAGE EDUCATION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I addressed two questions to the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal). I pointed out that in a number of our larger cities, Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Toronto to mention a few, there are a substantial number of students who just are not making it. They have not got the background and the command of the official languages which permit them to keep up with their classes and to get the education which they need if they are to succeed as adults in our society.
Who are these students? They are immigrant children, children who come from families who have come to Canada from countries where they speak neither English nor French, and the language which is spoken at home is a language which is not used in our schools or in our society as a whole, or, they are Native children. Native people have been moving into our cities in very large numbers.
The immigrant children are here because the federal Government encouraged immigration from the countries from which they came. Native children are in our cities because Native people have been leaving the reserves in very large numbers. Both of these groups of children are finding it very difficult to succeed in obtaining the education which they need.
Country-wide testing is done. There is a test which is called the Canadian Basic Skills Test. It was recently applied in Winnipeg. It was found that in the core area of Winnipeg- and it is true in other cities, I am sure-the schools which are largely populated by immigrant and Native children had test scores which were disastrously low. They were as low as 5 per cent or 10 per cent on a scale of 100 per cent. The average pass mark is 50 per cent.
By the time these children reach Grade 6, many of them are only reading at a Grade 3 or Grade 4 level. The result is that they fall further and further behind as more pressure is put on them in the higher grades. Many of them leave school. In fact, it is very clear that a high percentage of these students never finish high school.
We are in a period of time when society demands that young people entering the job market need to know a great deal more than ever before. They must have a firm foundation, not just in language, but in mathematics and in some of the sciences. These young people are doomed to failure. They are the immediate losers, but society as a whole will be the loser for generations to come because these young people who are not receiving adequate education simply cannot succeed.
Adjournment Debate
The Minister answered my questions by saying that the federal Government was already involved in helping to finance the education of these people by a program known as English as a second language. The program is working. In the City of Winnipeg, 1,100 immigrant children and 1,500 Native children are participating in that program.
The Minister is wrong if he thinks that all that is needed is help through the program for English as a second language. A great deal more is needed if those young people are to be brought up to the standards which society demands. There is a need for more teachers' aids and special work books which relate to immigrant and native children and their cultural backgrounds. The hours need to be longer so that these children can be helped to make up the difference in their shortcomings and their backgrounds. We need teachers who are trained to meet the multicultural challenge. The parents need to be helped to learn the language and to learn more about our history, particularly the mothers who do not go out to work, many of whom will never learn either the English or French language. What is required is a tremendous effort on the part of the local school district. But, Mr. Speaker, they do not have the financial ability to meet the requirements, and neither do the provinces.
What I am urging the Minister and the Government to do is to face up to their responsibilities. I know that the constitutional responsibility for education rests with the provinces. However, the children I talk about are there because the federal Government encouraged them to be there. I say that the federal Government should accept its moral responsibility and help to finance the educational programs which are needed to help these young people fit into our society and become full citizens, able to take their places as they should.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), when he mentions the requirements of children whose language spoken at home is neither English or French, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) has already made arrangements with his provincial colleagues to renegotiate the federal-provincial agreement on the citizenship and language instruction agreement, as well as the language text book agreement. The impetus for renegotiation of the agreements has come from the Treasury Board, which expressed concern over the "open-ended" nature of the agreement; from the provinces, who reviewed these agreements in 1980 with a view to renegotiating the needs of these particular children; and from the community, which following an immigrant women's conference in Toronto in 1981 gave a report which is reflected in these recommendations.
At present there is a departmental discussion paper drafted and there are consultations under way with CEIC, the Ministry of State for Social Development, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the federal-provincial relations office. Following the completion of consultations with the central agencies

June 28, 1984
Adjournment Debate
and other federal departments, a memorandum will be sent to Cabinet to be drafted for ministerial attention within the next two months. A major decision will then be taken to consider the approach and timing for negotiation of these agreements.
When we speak of the native children, the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) tries to address the needs of native children not addressed by the DIAND. The recommendations presented to the Secretary of State were that native children must be assured of instruction in their native language, customs and heritage, as well as in the official language of their parent's choice. This is being done by improving training opportunities for teachers of native languages; furthering development of native language curriculum; developing of written materials in
the field of native languages for use in schools and communities; and strengthening of cultural identity through improved ability to communicate in native languages. Provincial and territorial departments of education and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must be required to support and provide adequate funding for innovative educational programs such as survival schools and other alternate schools.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 29, 1984