1984-12-17

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, laid upon the Table on Friday, December 14, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (for the Minister of Public Works) moved: that Bill C-13, an Act to amend the Public Works Act and the Public Lands Grants Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, after consultations with opposition House Leaders, I think there is a predisposition to have the matter referred to the Committee of the Whole and to pass all stages today.


Miss MacDonald:: That is true.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if you ask the House, I think you will find consent to deal with it. If Hon. Members want to speak on the Bill, surely that is satisfactory.


Mr. Keeper:: Yes, we want to speak on the Bill.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Why don't we start again?


Mr. Speaker:: No. We have already adopted the Bill. However, if that is the pleasure of the House, the record should
show that by unanimous consent we will refer the matter to the Committee of the Whole.


Cyril Keeper: We have no objection to its going through today but we would like to speak to the Bill.


Mr. Speaker:: I waited at that point to see if anyone would rise. I would be perfectly happy to revert if that is the wish of the House. I am in the hands of the House. Perhaps the Hon. Member might wish to make his speech on Clause 1 in Committee of the Whole.


Cyril Keeper: Okay.


Mr. Speaker:: The same privileges apply and the same right to speak applies. Therefore, by unanimous consent, is it the pleasure of the House that the Bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, I do now leave the chair.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-13, an Act to amend the Public Works Act and the Public Lands Grants Act.
On Clause 1-Other properties


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to put our views with regard to this legislation on the record. We do not really want to hold up the Bill or to debate it so long as to prevent its passage. However, there are a number of things which need to be said about the legislation.
First, I should like to deal in a very brief manner with the purpose of this piece of legislation. It asks for certain authorities for the Department of Public Works to undertake various kinds of actions with regard to land and property. It deals with the whole question of lease-purchase. Apparently the Government has been carrying on these practices for a number of years. Now its authority to undertake these practices is under question because of a ruling from the Chair with regard to the use of votes in the House. The legislation asks for the Minister of Public Works and the Department of Public Works to have various authorities to carry on real estate development in a manner in which they have already done.
We have no serious objection to the Government having this authority. In fact, in his report the Auditor General recommended that the authority of the Department be clarified. Our

December 17, 1984
Public Works Act
real concern is not so much with the exact wording of the legislation or the exact legislative authority of the Department. More specifically, it is with how the Government exercises its authority.
I should like to put on the record our concerns about how the Government has exercised the authority which Parliament has given it. We cannot allow this to pass without comment. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the Auditor General's report because two of its chapters were devoted to the Department of Public Works.
The Auditor General is an officer of the Elouse. He has been given the responsibility of ensuring that we have adequate information to make financial decisions in the Chamber. Obviously the making of financial decisions is the purpose of the Chamber itself. The Auditor General draws our attention to public works and says that the federal Government has been doing a horrendous job in looking after its real estate and the millions of dollars which it spends on property leases. The Auditor General simply condemns the way in which the Government has been handling its real estate. He says that it does not manage its $40 billion to $60 billion worth of property in a manner that in any way recognizes the value of that property, that the Government often overpays for property and that it often takes space which it does not need. Those are three very serious indictments of the Government's practice with regard to real estate management. It does not recognize the value of the property, often overpays for property and takes space that it does not need.
[DOT] (mo)
While the Department of Public Works need adequate legislative authority to carry on the business of providing accommodation for government purposes, it is crucial that this be done in a way that recognizes the concerns of ordinary Canadian citizens about economy and government and the fact that we must get fair value for our taxes. If this kind of practice were allowed to continue indefinitely, this House would have to cease to give authority to the Department of Public Works to do that which is necessary in order for government to carry on its day-to-day business, namely providing accommodation for government departments which provide services to Canadians.
We are dealing with a very serious matter. It has to do fundamentally with how the Government handles the taxpayers' dollar. The Auditor General's report contains two full chapters of numerous case studies outlining the way the Department of Public Works handles real estate. The Auditor General describes that as shameful. It would make a private property manager blush with shame.
I am outlining these concerns which the Auditor General has brought to our attention in the hope that the Government will respond to them. While we give them the legislative authority they need to carry on the day-to-day work of the Government, they must answer to us for the way that they use or abuse this authority. I hope they will do that today. I must say that those practices outlined by the Auditor General were
carried out under a previous Government; therefore, this Government cannot be indicted for those practices. However, if these practices continue or if the Government does not take corrective measures, measures that can be seen to be effective, there will be good reason to indict this Government's handling of real estate.
The Auditor General said that the Department of Public Works often failed to follow Treasury Board guidelines and, in fact, government departments failed to follow directives of the Department of Public Works. This has come about because there is no effective mechanism in place whereby the Department can ensure compliance with its directives. This is one area in which the Department has a responsibility, and the Government and the Minister have the responsibility, to assure this House that this is being changed. In other words, an effective mechanism must be put in place to ensure that the directives of Treasury Board and of the Department are followed.
S)
I must say in passing that it surprises me that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) could not find the time to be present in the House today. Perhaps later on his colleague will share with us why the Minister is not here at a time when legislation involving his Department is before the House.
The Auditor General was so concerned about the handling of real state that when he was asked by the press whether or not he would recommend the firing of the Deputy Minister of Public Works, obviously a serious matter, he responded by saying that it was not his job to tell the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) how to manage public affairs but that if a real estate manager in the private sector were to handle property in the way the Government's managers have handled it, he or she would be given the pink slip. We are facing a serious question here, Mr. Chairman. How does one hold civil servants accountable for the property for which they are given responsibility by this Parliament?
Obviously the previous Minister who was responsible for this property when it was so mismanaged is no longer in office. In effect, he has been held accountable by the people. The people have relieved him of his responsibilities. However, what happens when the properties for which a senior civil servant is responsible are mismanaged in a blatant way? Does the Government have the responsibility to judge and to say that the management of that property is incompetent and the person who has been managing the property should be removed from his or her duties? Does the Government then bring in someone who can handle that property responsibly? If the Government does not share that view, does it have an alternative view that would assure us that property will not continue to be mismanaged but will be handled in a responsible way in the future? These are serious matters which I hope the Government will address in debate today.
The Auditor General has brought to our attention a number of cases involving the management of these real estate problems. For example, the Department of Public Works rented a
December 17, 1984

54,000 square metre building in 1982 at a cost of $154 million over a 10-year period without getting Treasury Board approval. Can you imagine making an expenditure of $154 million over a 10-year period, Mr. Chairman, without receiving Treasury Board approval?


Mr. Lewis:: Sure, they got it from a Grit.


Cyril Keeper: My colleague across the way, a Member of the Conservative Government, made mention of Grits. I assume he would mean that it was the Liberals that did this.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Certainly.


Cyril Keeper: Certainly it was the Liberals but the Liberals are no longer in office. The Conservatives are in office and we need to hear from the new Government about its specific, credible plans to assure us that this will never happen again. What will the Government do to assure us that $154 million will never again be spent by the Department of Public Works without Treasury Board approval? Will a procedure be put in place to correct that?
The Auditor General also found some $63,122,000 in excess payments involving some 12 leases. The Auditor General has been documenting the overpayments made by the Department of Public Works. Now, $63 million is a lot of money, Mr. Chairman. At this time of very high unemployment, that kind of money could be used to supplement the Canada Works Program, for example, which at this time is in bad need of additional appropriations. I would like to know from the Government how it will assure us that there will be no more excess payments. What new procedures will be put in place to assure us that the Government will pay fair value for property that it leases but that it will not overpay? We should have a response from the Government on that matter.
The Auditor General recommended that the Government take a close look at lease-purchase agreements. That is central to the legislation which is before the House today. The legislation clarifies and confirms the authority which the Department has in entering into lease-purchase arrangements. By the lease-purchase agreements, the Government agrees to rent a building for a period of time, and at the end of the rental period the Government purchases the building for a fixed amount. As a consequence, very large sums of money are tied up. It is not a trivial matter; in fact, the Auditor General has identified $1,919,600,000. Almost $2 billion is tied up in lease-purchase arrangements. It is a very heavy responsibility for the Government. The Government must examine how it handles lease-purchase arrangements.
The Auditor General has indicated that these agreements may cost the Crown more than if the Government borrowed the money and built the buildings. In other words, lease-purchase arrangements may cost the public purse more than if the Government built the buildings. For example, the Auditor General studied four lease-purchase agreements which totalled $762.9 million. The Auditor General found that if the Govern-
Public Works Act
ment had borrowed money and built the buildings at the same price as the developer, the cost would have been $85.8 million less over 35 years. In other words, it would have cost the taxpayers $85.8 million less if the Government had built the buildings rather than going the route of the lease-purchase arrangement.
It is incumbent upon the new Minister of Public Works and his Department to assure us that further consideration will be given to the whole question of lease-purchase agreements, as well as to assure us that lease-purchase arrangements will be handled in such a way that they will not cost taxpayers additional money. Why should we lease-purchase if it is better for the Government to borrow the money and build the buildings? That question must be examined.
The Auditor General also raised a question about the way the Government handles real estate and the way it utilizes that space. Is the space needed? Is it used? In using the figures of the Government, the Auditor General found that over the past five years the Government has had about 700,000 square metres of unoccupied space, at a cost of approximately $25 million per year. In these times when the public dollar is scarce-as the Government itself has said-it is important that the Government tell us now what policies and procedures it is going to put in place which will assure us that existing government space will be used and that it will not acquire space which will simply sit empty. What kind of system will the Government put in place to assure us of that?
There is one other area covered by the Auditor General's report which I feel is crucial and should be dealt with today by the Government. The Auditor General found that the federal Department of Public Works withheld information from the federal Cabinet when it leased three downtown Ottawa office buildings two years ago from Campeau Corporation for a total of $400 million. Because this essential information was not provided to Cabinet, it gave up an opportunity to obtain a building worth $46.5 million for $15 million. It is bad enough, Mr. Chairman, when Governments do not share information with Parliament, but when civil servants fail to provide information to Cabinet, the system becomes totally unworkable. So 1 would like to hear some assurances that the Government is going to make sure it receives all information before it makes decisions with regard to public works.
To sum up briefly, Mr. Chairman, the authority which is being asked for today appears to us to be legitimate. The problem has been the abuse of that authority in the past. We would like to know how this Government is going to assure Parliament that this abuse will stop and that the public dollar will be used wisely and with due prudence. I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary-and I wonder why the Minister is not here-as to just what procedures are going to be put in place in order to make sure that the taxpayers' money is not wasted. I would like to know specifically how the Government is going to hold its civil servants accountable in order to ensure that the job which needs to be done is done.

December 17, 1984
Public Works Act
Mir. Stewart: First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I was going to speak on the Bill previously. However, when it was referred to Committee of the Whole I did not feel there was any need to waste the time of the House as we pretty well have agreement.
I believe the Hon. Member has legitimate concerns which are shared by Hon. Members on all sides of the House. I would like to inform him, first, that the Minister is unavoidably out of the House today. He has a press conference and a meeting and consultation in Quebec City, and he just could not be in two places at once. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that he is really addressing the sins of the past. 1 want to assure him that these sins will not be repeated. This is not the mandate we were given by the people of Canada. We have a good and experienced Minister in this portfolio who really welcomes the opportunity to work in close consultation with the Auditor General.
With respect to lease-purchases, I will say that, of course, the Auditor General has made his views well known and I do not disagree with him. However, we must acknowledge that where Crown finance is not possible or preferable, lease-purchasing does clearly result in cost saving or cost avoidance to the Government, and ultimately to the taxpayers of this country. I have with me, Mr. Chairman, lease-purchase agreements for the Esplanade Laurier and C. D. Howe buildings which total some $24,668,890. The total rent in 1983-84 for comparable space in Ottawa would have amounted to $45,119,760. In this case the Government has an actual saving of $20,450,870.
These purchases are not always wrong. There are some advantages, of course, in the fact that there is fixed rental for 35 years and it will only vary up or down every five years. The operating and management fees are also fixed. The Crown will eventually own the building and has control over the quality of the building, ensuring that the performance specifications are met.
For the information of the Hon. Member, Mr. Chairman, an analysis is made in each case to compare lease-purchase to leasing and Crown financed construction. These analyses are given to Treasury Board. Let me assure the Hon. Member that the Minister will work very closely with Treasury Board in order to make sure the effective changes the Hon. Member is so concerned about-as we all are-will be put in place and that things which were not done properly in the past will be done in the future to everyone's satisfaction. I believe I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that all lease-purchase projects will be done in the most effective manner through Treasury Board and the Minister.


Mr. Fennell:: Mr. Chairman, I asked the House Leader if I could have an opportunity to speak on this Bill for a couple of minutes because I spent two years preventing Bill C-91, this Bill's predecessor, from going into effect. I wanted to get on the record that the reason for that is that in the original Bill, under Clause 1(4) it was not mentioned that no services or
work may be performed under Subclause (3) on properties not belonging to Canada without consent of the owner. I wanted to emphasize what this Government is doing to protect the people of this country. The Bill must protect people from having their property worked on without their permission. This is an important change.
I would also like to take this opportunity to make a recommendation to the Government. It arises out of the Auditor General's report referred to by the Hon. Member from the NDP concerning lease-purchase arrangements. I would like the Government to consider wherever possible, in the case of a lease-purchase, that government financing be used. It costs the Government 2 per cent less on average to borrow money than it does the private sector. If the Government is on the hook for a 35-year lease-purchase, then use government financing. The Auditor General points this out very clearly in his report. I notice the gentleman from Public Works is shaking his head. I am sure he will be shaking his head even more as we go through the Public Accounts with him. However, I would like that recommendation reviewed so that if there is a saving it can be passed on to the taxpayers of this country.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Chairman, recently I took the time to go through one of the towers of the PetroCan Building in Calgary. I found a most up-to-date mail system with little trains which stop at every office and take the mail to a central location. It would do justice to the very best that Canada Post has ever tried to do. I was also impressed with the gymnasium. It would be a tremendous asset to any YMCA in the country. However, the thing that amazed me most was that office after office after office was completely empty.
My question to the Parliamentary Secretary is: Did the Department of Public Works have any say in the construction of this building? Were they notified of it? Did they have any input into it? Was there any check made to see how many tenants could be secured? In other words, in brief, does Public Works share any responsibility for the two towers built by PetroCan in Calgary?


Mr. Stewart:: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that question is no. I would also say to the Hon. Member for Ontario that the difference in financing costs would be only eight-tenths of 1 per cent.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Chairman, I am getting to my feet at this time simply to confirm that, obviously, we are quite amenable to this Bill going through all stages today. The Bill before us is intended to make some useful changes to the Public Works Act and the Public Lands Grants Act which the Parliamentary Secretary has described. However, in saying this I am not associating myself with his rather inflammatory introductory sentences. I do want to say the Bill itself is in the same form, as I understand it, as a Bill introduced by a previous Liberal Government. Again, I think it is useful to have on record that the best things the new Conservative Government could find to bring before the House in the crucial early days of its mandate were measures prepared by the previous Liberal Government.
December 17, 1984


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary can give us specific examples of the type of authority being sought under Clause 1 concerning the right of the Minister to perform work on properties that do not belong to Canada, and so on. I would like specific examples of where this might be required.
Mir. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the Saint John seawall is a specific example. The Government built the seawall to shore up provincial lands so that housing could be built.


Dave Nickerson: The Parliamentary Secretary said this had already taken place. Presumably there was no authority for that to be done. If there were, there would be no need for this amendment to be brought before the Elouse today. So under what authority was that seawall constructed?


John B. Stewart: The authority of the Ministry.


Dave Nickerson: Under what legislative authority?


John B. Stewart: To my knowledge there is none and that is what we are talking about today.


Dave Nickerson: No it would appear, Mr. Chairman, that the previous Government was illegally spending public funds contrary to the law of the day for these projects, rather than bringing the previous Bill before the House of Commons and getting it passed. No wonder, Sir, that the Auditor General finds such fault with the activities of the previous Ministers of Public Works.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, the Parliamentary Secretary spoke briefly about lease-purchases. I was not entirely satisfied with his response; I had a number of other areas of concern when I spoke and he did not respond to any of those either. So I want to ask a few questions.
Because of the horrendous way that public property has been managed by the Department of Public Works, and given the Auditor General's statement that if a private sector property manager were to behave in this way he would be given the pink slip, what I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary is whether the Government is considering giving the pink slip to the Deputy Minister of Public Works on the basis of incompetence? If not, then how is he going to assure this House that this kind of waste of public funds will not occur in the future?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, that will be in the hands of the Minister and, thus far, he has confidence in the Deputy Minister.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, it is too bad that the Minister is not here to answer these questions. It seems to me that if the Minister or the Prime Minister continues to employ in a responsible position a Deputy Minister who has clearly demonstrated incompetence, then they are taking on the responsibility for that kind of behaviour. Until now, the Government can legitimately say that these are things of the past and they will not be repeated. Is the Government saying that this will not
Public Works Act
happen again but it is all right to continue employing the person responsible for these actions? If you are not going to relieve him of his duties, what are you doing to assure yourselves that this kind of waste of public dollars will not happen again?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, as I said before, we do have a competent Minister. I assure you that the Minister will take all steps necessary to ensure that this does not happen again. Whether the concerns are with regard to the Auditor General's report, Treasury Board or whatever, I can assure you that they will not be repeated.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, the Parliamentary Secretary really has not answered the question. He has clearly said that they continue to have confidence in the Deputy Minister and that they are going to keep him on in spite of the record of the Department. Therefore, they must have some other measures they will take to assure us that this kind of waste of public funds will not continue. He has not enunciated those measures here. These are serious matters involving millions of dollars. The Minister is not here to enunciate them. I assume the Parliamentary Secretary is not telling us because he does not know himself and must simply rely upon his own confidence that the Minister will do things that are necessary.
It is really not adequate for the Parliamentary Secretary to say in the House that they will take all measures that are necessary. We need to have those measures spelled out. The Government must tell us how the Department will avoid acquiring space it does not need in the future which costs something like $25 million a year. Specifically, how is it going to avoid overpayments for property in the future? How is it going to ensure us that directives of the Department of Public Works and the Treasury Board will be followed? Give us the procedures and policies. Most importantly, how is it going to assure itself that Treasury Board and the Cabinet receive the information necessary to make decisions with regard to real estate?
Mr. Chairman, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us information on how the Government will ensure that this waste of public money does not continue in the future. It is not enough to simply say that it will take all measures possible or necessary.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the Hon. Member wants. The Minister is quite aware of all the properties in question and all the lease-purchases. He is on top of that. He is checking with the Deputy Minister. He is listening to the Auditor General and he is going to do everything possible to ensure that the things which happened in the past which concern the Hon. Member will not happen again. What more can I say? He is the Minister of the Department and he has a handle on it, unlike the previous Government.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, it is not adequate for the Parliamentary Secretary simply to assure the House that the Minister has a handle on it. Those are nice, vague words. They
1278

December 17, 1984
Public Works Act
have no specific content. It is not good enough for the Minister to send a Parliamentary Secretary to the House who cannot give us information on how the Department is going to avoid waste in the future when the waste in the past is already accurately documented.
I will deal with one specific item on that list, Mr. Chairman. The Department of Public Works has not been following Treasury Board guidelines. The Auditor General points out that there is no effective mechanism in place to ensure that the Department will follow Treasury Board guidelines. Could the Parliamentary Secretary deal with that one specific item and tell us what mechanism will be put in place to assure the House that the Department will follow Treasury Board guidelines and that other Departments will follow the guidelines as set out by the Department of Public Works?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I will answer that very happily. The policies and procedures are in place right now as far as the Ministry and the Treasury Board are concerned, and they will be followed. It is a very simple thing. You don't rent, you don't do anything that you don't have to do, and you utilize the things that are there. As I said, the policies are in place with Treasury Board and they will be followed. I am sure the Hon. Member will be very happy to see what happens with Public Works now as compared to the former Government.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, I find these responses totally inadequate. We are talking about the loss of $25 million a year through the Government acquiring space that it does not need. All the Parliamentary Secretary can do in the absence of the Minister is stand up and say that it will not happen again. That is not good enough. The Auditor General has pointed out that there is no mechanism in place to assure that the Department of Public Works will follow Treasury Board guidelines. Let us put a mechanism in place. Describe it specifically.
This is simply not good enough Mr. Chairman. All we are getting from the Parliamentary Secretary is his bland assurances that this will never happen again. That suggests that in fact this will happen again and we will have another Auditor General's report in the future which will identify more waste of public dollars unless the Government wakes up and does something specific to change the items that have been documented by the Auditor General.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the Auditor General's report has been duly noted and digested by the Minister. The policies and procedures, in conjunction with the Auditor General's report, are about to be put in place. It just came out. Unfortunately the Minister is not here but he will tell you the same thing, he is going to do everything possible to put the Auditor General's report in place and ensure that these things do not happen again. What more can I say? Shall I stand on the desk three times and sing it?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, I am pursuing this matter because it is important. I will be a little nicer to the Parliamentary Secretary. If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot tell the House today specifically how the Department and the Government are going to avoid this kind of waste in the future, when will they tell the House? When will they outline in specific terms how they will avoid this kind of waste of public funds in the future? Right now they can sit there comfortably and point out that these wastages took place under a previous Government. That is true. However, they cannot do that in the future. We need specific action from the Government now which outlines new mechanisms that will assure that this will not happen again.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing new about a Government accepting things that were wrong and did not work. We are not going to accept the things that are wrong and do not work. We are putting in place the recommendations of the Auditor General. Treasury Board is on to it. Again, what more can I say?


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to proceed on the same item in the same direction. I do know that this report was written a considerable time ago and that the Department of Public Works knew that these particular reports were coming out from the Auditor General. In the report the Auditor General says that the Government's estimates of unoccupied space are notoriously unreliable. Would the Parliamentary Secretary give an indication whether the Department of Public Works now knows whether the 6.3 million square feet of unoccupied space which the Government had is the minimum, or is there actually much more than that unoccupied? Has the Public Works Department done that kind of survey or has it not made any effort to answer that particular charge by the Auditor General?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, in response to the Hon. Member, the actual measurement of space is very difficult to come up with right at the present moment. However, the Minister is actually involved in doing that, and when he returns he will be introducing some new mechanisms into the guidelines, specifically on rental properties and lease-purchases. I am not able at the moment to tell the Hon. Member exactly what the Minister will be introducing. It will be in conjunction with the things we have already mentioned.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Chairman, some of the suggestions by the Auditor General are based directly on what appeared to be a leasing of property which might be needed ten years hence. I am referring particularly to Vancouver site 56. There does not seem to be anything in Treasury Board regulations to stop this kind of thing. Will this Government attempt to put something into Treasury Board regulations which will limit the kind of forward planning which results in the leasing of more than six million unused square feet?


John B. Stewart: I will certainly take the Hon. Member's suggestion as well as the concerns of his seatmate to the Minister, Mr. Chairman. We welcome suggestions from the Opposition at all times. We are only interested in improving the situation. The Minister is going through that whole exercise at present.
December 17, 1984


Mr. Langdon:: Mr. Chairman, I would like, if I could, to pursue a question raised by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre. It does seem to me that we should at least have some indication of the direction in which the Department is considering moving in order to deal with some of the problems from the past.
Are we talking about directives being put in the form of changes to regulations, or are we talking about some legislative changes that may be possible? We are dealing with a set of legislative changes this morning that help to clarify a number of areas that have been murky in the past. It may well be that there needs to be similar legislative changes to deal with some of the concerns that my colleague raised. Is this something the Minister is considering or are we talking about changes in regulations within the internal directives of the Ministry itself?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. What is happening is that we are getting a long, long way from all-Party agreement on some purely housekeeping measures that we can get rid of before the Minister arrives and develops fully the specific areas he wishes to address. These measures will be new, and I am sure when Hon. Members, all three in the New Democratic Party, see what these specifics are, they will be more than pleased. What we are dealing with now is just a bit of housekeeping. If we can get on with that, Hon. Members will be pleasantly surprised when the Minister returns with his specific suggestions.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Chairman. I would like to preface it by saying that in the past, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and in conjunction with my colleague from Prince Albert, we had an opportunity to look into some of the Department of Public Works problems. The biggest problem was not that the regulations were not there; the problem was one of enforcement and a will to enforce the regulations.
Would this not be the case with the Minister of Public Works, that it would be a matter of enforcing regulations already there rather than, as my colleague from Prince Albert will testify to his seatmate, just letting these regulations continue to go on unenforced?


John B. Stewart: I would like to thank my hon. colleague for clarifying the matter and saying the things that should have been said at the beginning, Mr. Chairman. I could not agree with him more. I would like to say that the Minister, while he is not in the House today, has been travelling extensively and visiting all the major projects right across Canada with a view to doing exactly the things that have been mentioned here today. The Minister wants to understand the situation fully. We have inherited a very sticky wicket. We wants to be fully informed of all the projects, the rental properties, the lease properties, et cetera, so he will be entirely on top of it all and can return to make good recommendations to the House.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I want to thank the Member from Simcoe North for his interjection, Mr. Chairman but I want to speak for a moment on that point. I agree entirely with the point of
Public Works Act
view he has taken. It appears that in all cases regulations are there, but there is no limitation on a lot of them. For instance, one can get space, and while we are going to need it five years down the road-I am speaking of a particular area-maybe to curtail this kind of overexpenditure on space there should be some limiting authority as far as the Department is concerned. Perhaps every lease should have a sunset clause which would stipulate that if space is not used within a certain length of time, it could be returned to the lessor, in which case this extra expenditure would not have to be made. Would the Parliamentary Secretary respond to that approach?


John B. Stewart: Of course, that is something that should be looked at, Mr. Chairman, but the Hon. Member has to remember what has happened with land costs in recent years. I do not think there is anything inherently the matter with the federal Government land-banking certain land which it knows will be required. In other words, long-range planning. It must though be prudent and there must be an escape hatch so that land can be returned if it is not used within the time for which it was acquired.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, I would like to pursue a completely different line of questioning, more specifically on the legislation itself.
This legislation was before this House as Bill C-91 in the last Parliament. It was introduced by the Liberal Government of the day. When this legislation was being debated at second reading, the Conservative Party was in opposition. While the Parliamentary Secretary today describes the legislation as a housekeeping measure, at that time Members of the Conservative Party described it in a completely different fashion. For example, the Conservatives described it as a dangerous piece of legislation giving too much power to the monstrous bureaucracy in the Department of Public Works. They said that the Bill goes beyond all realms of possibility, that it goes beyond the wildest dreams of the Socialist International. Let me emphasize, "beyond the wildest dreams of the Socialist International", Mr. Chairman. The Conservatives in opposition said this Bill was taking away people's rights. They did not describe it as housekeeping. They described it as taking away people's rights and property rights. This legislation takes away property rights; that does not sound like housekeeping.
They went on to say about the Liberal Government of the day that every piece of legislation had a nasty, rotten thread running through it. That might be described as housekeeping in a way, but it sounds different to me. A Conservative Member who spoke at that time said that it was a socialist thread to put all responsibility into the hands of the bureaucracy. Then the Member went on to say: "I pray to the Almighty that there will be an election soon and that we rid the country of that rotten mess which is destroying it".
We have had the election and we have had a change of government. Now what happens? The Conservatives are no longer in opposition. They are in government and a piece of

December 17, 1984
Public Works Act
legislation which goes beyond the wildest dreams of the Socialist International becomes mere housekeeping.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House how this piece of legislation has so transformed itself? If he cannot do so, why is it that the Conservatives said one thing in opposition and another in government?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the biggest reason is that the Bill has been changed and improved. In the next instance this went to Justice with the input of all Parties, including the NDP. It was agreed upon. That is the explanation.


Cyril Keeper: I would not want to be unfair to the Government. Therefore I acknowledge that there is at least one significant improvement in the legislation wherein the Government is seeking authority to make improvements in properties it does not own. The new legislation now requires that the Government get the consent of the property owner. That is good. It is a progressive amendment to the legislation. That change, while significant, has not transformed the legislation to the extent that a "socialist dream" has somehow simply become housekeeping. I am still puzzled as to why the Conservatives said one thing in opposition and something totally different in government.


John B. Stewart: The difference is that the Bill in its previous form was introduced by a socialist Government with socialist friends. We now have a Conservative Government with a new Bill. That is the difference.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, I cannot allow that to pass. The Conservatives in opposition described the legislation in words which simply amounted to saying that it was a socialist plot. Now they are in office it becomes housekeeping. Clearly they do not know what the word "socialist" means at all.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Chairman, as a new Member of the House I must say that this is a fascinating debate. I was struck by a number of the comments made when the last Bill was before the House. Frankly, I had not realized how this Bill represented a remarkable example of turning the clock back and trying to forget about the past. I am particularly struck by some of the comments about the specifics of Section 3 of the previous Act. If I read the present Bill before us correctly, there has not been significant change. The previous Bill was described by a representative of the Conservative Party who said: "What a colossal fraud this Bill hopes to perpetrate on the people of Canada". That Member continued by saying: "The Government is now seeking authority to sell or lease any property whether or not the Government owns it, whether or not it is required for public purposes". Some of the rhetoric was remarkable, such as: "What a horror scenario we have in front of us".
Would the Parliamentary Secretary deal specifically with that section of the Act and tell me, as a horror-stricken new Member of the House seeking to understand, why this represented a colossal fraud in the past and why it does not represent a colossal fraud in the present?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, if the Hon. Member takes a look at the two Acts in question, he will see that the section has been changed significantly. That makes a great difference to the "colossal fraud" to which he referred. I will not bother the House by going through the whole section, but it has been substantially changed. The Hon. Member can look it up.


Mr. Cassidy:: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the chance to speak to the Parliamentary Secretary about some of the abuses of public funds which were clearly evident in the Department of Public Works. I recognize, as does the Parliamentary Secretary, that those were the works of the previous Government. However, I want to see whether we can have some assurances that the same abuses will not take place under the present Government.
Perhaps I could begin by asking a specific question which relates both to purchases and leases of property by DPW. The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that half-empty or partially occupied buildings were leased at great public expense in the riding of the Hon. Paul Cosgrove and I think in the riding of the Hon. Romeo LeBlanc, both Members of the previous Cabinet. There was a great deal of intuition on the part of people that those leases were in fact much more related to the political fortunes of those Ministers and their doing favours for friends than to real need. Could the Parliamentary Secretary confirm whether it is the Department's belief or his belief now that that was in fact the case?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I would not want to point a finger at any individual in the House and say that something like that was done as a matter of intent. Before the Hon. Member came into the House, I addressed specifically the fact that the Minister would be bringing forward specific recommendations to the House to ensure that things such as the Hon. Member described do not happen again. I share his concern.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Could the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that there will not be spending of public resources in the way that happened under the Liberals in order to put office buildings, leases or such things into ridings of Members of the present or future Conservative Cabinets? Could he assure us that we will not see the kind of patronage abuse in the future that we saw in the past when the Liberals were in power?


John B. Stewart: I am sure the Right Hon. Prime Minister will be watching with interest any such thing. We all know how many people came back on this this of the House. It was because of things like those the Hon. Member described that we are here. I am also very sure that the Minister will be keeping a very close watch on the things he described.


Michael Morris Cassidy: With respect, the Parliamentary Secretary agrees that he deplores such things happening, but he shies short of actually promising that they will not happen under the new Government after a certain breathing period or honeymoon has taken place. Could I have a categorical assurance that the kind of thing which took place under the Liberals will
December 17, 1984

not take place under the new Government over the next four years?


John B. Stewart: I cannot put words in the mouth of the Minister, unfortunately, but I can assure the Hon. Member that his concerns will be brought to the attention of the Minister. As far as I am concerned, I am sure he will make certain that what the Hon. Member is speaking about does not happen.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, it is not just my concern. I am speaking on behalf of millions of Canadians who felt there were a lot of abuses. I am beginning to wonder whether what they are seeing now with a new Government is a Government just as prepared to break its word, to break promises, to forget how it came to office and, I fear, just as prone to take on the practices of the old Government.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can comment with respect to the favouritism shown to certain developers. I think of the deal which was reported by the Auditor General with respect to Place de Ville, the Journal Towers, and the Centennial Towers in downtown Ottawa. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, some $40 million to $50 million of excess costs were incurred by DPW because of the totally amateurish way in which it negotiated that particular deal. One could say either that the officials were totally amateur or that the reason the deal was entered into may have had something to do with the fact that Bob Campeau has been a well-known friend of the former Government. Possibly it was a consequence of that that the Government of the day was prepared to give such a sweet deal to Mr. Campeau and to put such a lot of excess profit into his pocket.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that the new Government will not act in that same generous fashion but will avoid acting in such a generous fashion if developers with links to the Conservative Party come along and want to do business with the new Government?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I think almost categorically I can say that we will do everything in our power to see that such things do not happen again. The very fact that the Hon. Member brings them before the House and the Canadian people-and it is a recognized fact that this sort of thing did go on with the previous Government-would make us idiots if we did not stop the practice, in my view. I might just add that this side of the House fought long and hard during the constitutional debate for the inclusion of property rights in the Canadian Constitution, something his Party did not. This would augur well.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the last comment has flown right over my head. How that excuses the Department of Public Works for its mismanagement of public funds is absolutely beyond me.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the new Government would be idiots if it did not put an end to those kinds of sweet
Public Works Act
deals with developers that happen to be of the same political stripe as the Government. I did not hear him specifically say that the new Government will avoid those kinds of deals over the next three or four years; in other words, during its term in office. I am not sure whether that is significant or not, but 1 think it should be reported on the record.
I would now like to comment on a specific opportunity by which the new Government could perhaps save money. It has said again and again that it wants to reduce the deficit. I am puzzled over the decision made by the previous Government to play musical chairs with major Departments moving around Ottawa over the course of the coming very few months. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, the new Government inherited a plan which would have Treasury Board, the Comptroller General's Office and the Department of Finance, which I believe are in two or three different locations, move into L'Esplanade Laurier buildings at Bank and Laurier in downtown Ottawa. The cost of that move is in the order of $23 million and, I think, rising. The amount reported one or two years ago is probably below what it will actually cost. In addition, the move has the effect of requiring that both the Public Service Commission and the National Capital Region office of Public Works move to Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere in Hull.
The interesting question is this. In the first place, does it make sense for the National Capital Region of DPW, which provides services throughout the region, to move across the river or, likewise, the Public Service Commission? The second question is: Why do we have to play musical chairs not once, but twice? I understand that the Department of Finance is getting turfed out of Place Bell Canada. Presumably this is because Bell Canada is continuing with its policy of removing its head office from Montreal, which I am afraid has gone on for much too long. At any rate, the landlords have said they want the space, it is their right to have it and the Department of Finance will move.
Is it because of the departmental pecking order that Finance gets to move to Bank and Laurier and that DPW and the Public Service Commission get shifted to Hull? Is that what is happening? If you are exercising due regard for economy and efficiency, surely it would make sense for the Department of Finance, Treasury Board and the Comptroller General to move from their current quarters directly to Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere. Instead of having to spend $23 million to relocate to L'Esplanade Laurier and having to spend another $20 million or so to move the Public Service Commission and DPW to Hull, we could spend that $20 million once rather than twice.
Since I speak as an Ottawa area Member, there are a lot of other things that could be done with that $20 million rather than have it mis-spent or wasted on the musical chairs game now going on. Will the Parliamentary Secretary comment on that item?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member is correct about the Bell Canada building. It is a case of the lease running out. L'Esplanade Laurier is the only place large

December 17, 1984
Public Works Act
enough to hold the two Departments. In order to give an in depth answer, which I shall do, I will now take the question as notice and get an answer from the Minister.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I appreciate that assurance. I would like an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that we can have an answer in the House or in writing before the end of this week. The Auditor General's report indicates that the move is to be made at almost any time.
Given the fact that there has been empty space in some of the buildings in Hull for as long as four or six years, and given the size of those buildings, which we can all see by looking out of our windows, I am a bit surprised there is not adequate space there to accommodate those three Departments. If the space is not totally contiguous but is separated by a floor or two, I am not sure whether that is a serious enough handicap to require us to spend $20 million extra in order to ensure that a few public servants do not have to go up or down an extra flight of stairs when going to see one of their opposite members in one of those related Departments. I would appreciate a comment on that. If we could have a reply this week, perhaps the Department can indicate more specifically why all that extra money is being spent when one move could take place rather than two.


John B. Stewart: As I said before, Mr. Chairman, I will get the answer for the Hon. Member as quickly as possible.


Michael Morris Cassidy: One final point, Mr. Chairman, recognizing that I am perhaps treading a bit on the goodwill of the House.


An Hon. Member:: Not at all.


Michael Morris Cassidy: My friend says not at all, so I am encouraged. The phrase "revenue dependency", as the Parliament Secretary knows, talks about a theory by which Departments should be paying either market cost or full cost price for facilities they get from the Department of Public Works. I recognize this relates to the previous Government, but can the Parliamentary Secretary explain why it has taken such a damnable amount of time for the theory, which most people recognize will lead to more prudent use of space by client departments, to be put in place? I understand it has not been translated into operating practice. If they cannot get all the bugs out, why not get it 90 per cent corrected and at least make the charges related to cost rather than carrying on in the present manner?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member is quite correct. It has been under study and has taken a long time. It will be operable in 1985-86.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the Department is reported to have called for tenders on only 7 per cent of the space requirements. Despite specific rulings from Treasury Board in terms of policy, it managed to find exceptions for 93 per cent. What is the goal of the new Government in terms of its apportioning of the acquisitions of space which will be tendered under the new Government? What will the percentage be?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, as far as I can understand, just as high as possible.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could put some numbers on it. This matter returns to the Bill itself. The powers of the Department are being broadened. The Department is being given more flexibility to use some of the techniques which have been used by the private sector, like lease-backs, lease-forwards and those kinds of things. Under those circumstances, this Bill gives more capacity to the Department of Public Works to enter into sweet deals and deals which would otherwise be impenetrable by or incomprehensible to the House and the Auditor General. That is one of the reasons why this may have been criticized in the previous Parliament. However, I was not here then.
Only 7 per cent of the leases worked out by the Department previously had been worked out on the basis of tenders. What percentage of tenders, rather than exceptions to the present rules, does the new Government aim to achieve?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the figure of 7 per cent is correct and it was 6 per cent before that, I believe. The aim of the present Government is to get as many as possible under tender. Obviously I cannot give the Hon. Member specific numbers at this point, but it will be as many as possible.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, the Parliamentary Secretary knows that the Auditor General identified a number of ways in which public dollars have been wasted by the Department of Public Works. For example, the Auditor General found $63 million in excess payments with regard to 12 leases. He also found that, over the period of the past five years, the Department had 700,000 square metres of unoccupied space at a cost of $25 million a year. In addition, through four lease-purchase agreements the Department paid a price for property which cost the Government $85.8 million more over a period of 35 years than it would have cost if it had developed the property itself.
There is some one item. The Auditor General said that the Department of Public Works withheld information from the federal Cabinet which resulted in a further loss of funds. Earlier today the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Minister had complete confidence in the Deputy Minister of Public Works. With these kinds of losses of public funds, I am wondering if the Parliamentary Secretary could explain to the House the Government's complete confidence in the Deputy Minister of Public Works. How can the Government have complete confidence in a Deputy who has been in charge of a Department that has lost this many public dollars?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member has mentioned all of these points previously. I think I have attempted to answer him as well as I can. Let me tell the Hon. Member that all of these things happened under the former Government. The Deputy Minister takes his instructions from the Minister. He is now dealing with a different Minister.
December 17, 1984

As 1 explained to the Hon. Member, guidelines will be presented in the House by the Minister after he has done a complete inspection of all of the things mentioned by the Hon. Member, an inspection which he is doing personally right now. Surely the Hon. Member wants the Minister to have absolute knowledge so he can return to make the changes to which the Hon. Member refers. That is what he is doing.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the Minister will be returning with specific recommendations. We will await those recommendations.
In the absence of the Minister, I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what a senior public servant must do in order to lose the confidence of the Government. Obviously, these actions took place under the previous Government but it is the present Government that is expressing its confidence in the Deputy Minister of Public Works.
How many dollars of public funds must a Deputy Minister in charge of a Department waste before he is seen to be incompetent by this Government which is in office today? How can this Government put its confidence in a senior civil servant who wastes so much public money? I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me how this Government can describe a senior civil servant as competent when, in his term as a senior civil servant, he has overseen the waste of this many public dollars.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Hon. Member what waste has occurred since this Government has taken office. That is the whole point. The Minister is the man who is responsible. He will stand in his place and will be answerable for what happens in the Department of Public Works, but not for what happened under the previous administration to which the Hon. Member is trying to tie this one. I am sorry. The Minister will make the decisions and I am sure that the Deputy Minister will follow the instructions given by the Minister to everyone's satisfaction.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, it is hard for us to have confidence in this Government when, in the first instance, the Minister of Public Works cannot find the time to be present in the House to deal with his own legislation. How can we have confidence in a Government which acts in this way?
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that all of these things happened in the past and they are not going to happen in the future. It was in this Parliament that the Auditor General reported on what has been going on in the Department of Public Works. Even though millions of dollars have been wasted by that Department, it is the present Government that is expressing its confidence in the senior civil servant who is responsible for that Department. That is a decision made by the Parliamentary Secretary's Government, not by the previous Government. The previous Government was not faced with the report of the Auditor General indicating that the Government wasted money because the Department of Public Works did not provide adequate information to the Treasury Board. It is this Government that is making the decision that a senior
Public Works Act
civil servant is competent to carry on his duties even though, under his direction, a Department wasted all of this money.
Is there any point at which a senior civil servant would be declared by the Government to be incompetent? How much public money would a Department under the direction of a Deputy Minister have to waste before this Government would say that that behaviour is incompetence?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member is going through a hypothetical flim-flam.


Cyril Keeper: Hypothetical?


John B. Stewart: Sure it is hypothetical. The Hon. Member is asking what our Minister will do. Every bit of this happened previously. It is like trying to see what is inside a Christmas present without undoing the string. Just give us a change and we will show the Hon. Member.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, the Parliamentary Secretary has said that this is hypothetical. The fact that the Department of Public Works wasted all this money is documented in the report of the Auditor General. I simply want to know from the Parliamentary Secretary if there is any level of wastage of money for which a Deputy Minister is responsible at which the Government feels that that behaviour is unacceptable? Is there any point at which the Government loses confidence in a civil servant who has carried on in that manner?
The Parliamentary Secretary keeps referring to the fact that this happened in the past. Yes, it did happen in the past. It is being reported on today. However, the Deputy Minister is still there. The Parliamentary Secretary has expressed full confidence in this Deputy Minister. I would like to know upon what basis the Government judges the performance of its senior civil servants?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, on the contrary, I am expressing confidence not only in the Deputy Minister; I am expressing total confidence in the Minister who has had previous experience in this portfolio. If he believes that the changes can be effected with the present staff, then I absolutely agree with him. Until such time as we see that the changes are not forthcoming and that the Department is not run properly under the Minister, I think the Hon. Member is off base. He is talking in the past. The Hon. Member has not mentioned one concrete item which has been implemented since we have been in government which he would like to have changed. As I previously stated, motions are now being made, the policy is being put in place and allowed to operate.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, the Government does not present us with a picture which would allow us to express confidence. The Minister is not in the House when his legislation is being debated. The Parliamentary Secretary is unable to tell us precisely and specifically how the wastage of public money will be avoided in the future. The Government is not willing to articulate those procedures today. But at the same

December 17, 1984
1284____________________________________
Public Works Act time the Government is expressing 100 per cent confidence in the Deputy Minister, the public servant under whose direction these moneys were wasted.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Another Svend Robinson!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: McCarthyism!


Cyril Keeper: "McCarthyism", I hear from Members opposite. Mr. Chairman, is it McCarthyism to ask the Government to tell us on what criteria it evaluates the performance of Deputy Ministers? How can this new Government express total confidence in a Deputy Minister under whose direction so many public dollars have been wasted? In the Government's evaluation of senior public servants, does it take into account how they handle the public purse?


Marcel Danis: I would remind Hon. Members of Standing Order 59(2) which reads as follows:
Speeches in Committees of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I am not convinced that some of the matters which being discussed are strictly relevant to the clause which is under consideration. Does the Parliamentary Secretary wish to reply?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Chair for its remarks. I was about to say that we are having a spurious line of questioning which is not germane to the Bill. Question Period is the time when the Hon. Member should ask the questions which he is now posing.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, the relevance of the line of questioning is this. The first clause in the Bill refers to the capacity of the Minister and the Department of Public Works to make expenditures. It is an open-ended clause which reads:
(3) The Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, incur expenditures or perform, or have performed, services or work in relation to-
It is an open-ended clause which allows for the expenditure of funds. At the same time, the Auditor General has identified that the expenditure of funds by the Department of Public Works has been wasteful. We must ask ourselves how that will be corrected. Will it be corrected by changing the public servants who are responsible for it? In other words, will competent people be put in charge? Will the Government change its practices and policies? If we cannot satisfactorily be assured of that, then perhaps it must be written into legislation.
The relevance to the line of questioning which I have pursued is that the Government is asking for authority to spend money. It is asking for open-ended authority in the first clause. In another clause it asks for the authority to engage in lease-purchase arrangements. The Government has been doing that for a number of years. In his report the Auditor General identified that under those arrangements the Government has spent money in a way which has cost the public purse more than if the Government had simply built the buildings itself.
We need concrete assurances that the waste which has been identified will not be repeated. The assurances must be either in terms of how the moneys are administered, the competence of the personnel and the policies and procedures which oversee the handling of those moneys, or else it must be in legislation. The legislation before us today asks for the authority to spend money, particularly the first clause which is open-ended.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works a question. Does he not think that the tactics of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre in raising the allegations regarding the competence of certain government employees smack of the McCarthyism which we have witnessed coming from other Members of his Party? Does the Parliamentary Secretary not think that this is not the appropriate place for a discussion of personalities and competence, and that if the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre had the courage of his convictions, he would make such statements outside the House and/or bring them up in Question Period?


John B. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I totally agree. I stated before that I did not think the line of questioning was relevant to the debate. I thank the Hon. Member for his comments. I thought we had an all-Party agreement, and I would like to get on with the legislation.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, I am being accused by government Members of engaging in McCarthyism. Is it McCarthyism to ask the Government what criteria it uses to judge the competence of a Deputy Minister? The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board talked about allegations. The incompetent handling of real estate property by the Government is documented in the Auditor General's report. The facts are documented, they are not picked out of the air. The possibility of a public servant being relieved of his duties because his actions were incompetent was not raised by myself, it was raised by the media. The media asked the Auditor General whether he would recommend to the Prime Minister that such a Deputy Minister be fired. The Auditor General said that he would not comment on how the Prime Minister should manage the Public Service. However, the Auditor General did say that any property manager who handled property in the private sector this way would be handed a pink slip.
To accuse me of McCarthyism is an attempt to throw a red herring into the debate.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That's what McCarthy did.


Cyril Keeper: Government Members laugh. These are serious matters which involve millions of dollars of public funds. The Government ran on the promise to cut waste. I want to know how it will do that. I want it to be specific in its assurances to the House that it will in fact do that. When the Parliamentary Secretary says that he has complete confidence in the Deputy Minister, I want ot know on what basis he has that confidence. The Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned that the Minister has complete confidence in the Deputy Minister. I would like
December 17, 1984

to know on what basis the Government has that confidence. Is there a level of the wastage of the public moneys which are under the direction of the Deputy Minister at which the question can legitimately be put: Is the person who is managing these public funds competent or incompetent?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, if the Hon. Member would look at the appointments which were made by the Prime Minister in the past, he would see that the Prime Minister has confidence in people of all stripes. In addition, if he reviewed the Conservative task force on income tax he would find that we went to great lengths to ensure that people were innocent until proven guilty. Unlike the Hon. Member, we believe that all senior civil servants should have the opportunity of proving themselves under a new Minister before they are judged guilty and sentenced.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, the Parliamentary Secretary simply refuses to answer the question. He refuses to answer the questions on all bases. The question is: Upon what criteria does the Government judge the competence or incompetence of a senior civil servant? And does not the wastage of enormous amounts of funds raise questions about his or her competence?
I ask that question because when I pursued the other question-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is the 250,000 civil servants he is going after now.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yes, 234,000 civil servants.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Why don't you speak up on behalf of the civil servants?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, I am beginning to get a lot of heckling from the government side. Obviously, that is because those people opposite are not willing to deal with the issue at hand.
If the Government cannot tell us upon what criteria it bases its confidence in the competence of a senior civil servant, then will it tell us what new procedures it is going to put in place to assure us that those civil servants who will continue in those positions will in fact not waste taxpayers' money in the future?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He is accusing them all of wasting money. Shame on you.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the sacred trust of every Minister is to protect taxpayers' money. That is what our Minister is going to do. I cannot keep going over the same old ground with the Hon. Member. He is just regurgitating the same old stuff. The Minister will evaluate his Department once he has gotten a complete grasp of the situation, which he has travelled across Canada to asertain. It will be done on the basis of competence and on the principle of saving the taxpayer of Canada money.
Public Works Act


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if this Bill would provide relief for people renting buildings or facilities to the federal Government. I am thinking in particular of the post office building at Richards Landing, Ontario. The owner, who was previously the postmaster but is retired now, and served in the Canadian forces in his earlier years, rents the building to Canada Post. He signed an agreement, I believe, in 1977 for a period of five years, to 1983. He was then forced to renew for another five years at the rate of rent which existed during the previous five-year period. The building has 720 square feet and was rented for something like $160 a month, including light, heat, maintenance and caretaking. That figure is very unrealistic today and, of course, will be even more so by 1988.
A number of representations have been made over the year. The Department tells him that it does not have the option to simply cancel the existing lease. I would hope that this legislation will give the Minister power to cancel an unfair, unjust and unjustifiable lease agreement. In this case, the amount of rent is very low. The individual owner is not in good health. He wants to sell and dispose of the building but is locked in for a five-year period with an unrealistic lease. No one would want to buy the property because they know they are not going to get a fair return on the investment.
I would be interested to know if the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us if this Bill, which gives certain powers to the Minister, will also allow him to change this lease, which is obviously unfair and unjustified? If so, will the Parliamentary Secretary undertake to request that the Minister allow this lease to be cancelled so that this individual, who retired several years ago and wants to get out of the lease, can do so? Surely it is not the design of the Government of Canada to lock a senior citizen into an unfair and unrealistic agreement such as is imposed by the existing arrangement.


John B. Stewart: I thank the Hon. Member for his concern, Mr. Chairman. I suppose it would be the normal procedure for a five-year option to go to Treasury Board. I have no knowledge of the case in point. I will take his question as notice to the Minister and get him a reply.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Chairman, I have a specific question on the meaning of Clause 1. It states:
The Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, incur expenditures or perform, or have performed, services or work in relation to
(a)	properties belonging to Canada .. .
(b)	properties not belonging to Canada.
Does this provision authorize the Department or the Minister to undertake limited housekeeping changes, such as maintenance? Does it allow long-range or far-reaching undertakings or is it only short-term changes?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the Hon. Member I will say yes, it does. I believe an example where this authority is implemented is where work is required on municipally-owned land and when the federal Government has agreed to participate in a project in order to further widen social and

December 17, 1984
Public Works Act
economic objectives. A specific case in point which I mentioned earlier was the Saint John Market Square where the federal Government built a seawall on municipal land. This was in order to allow multiple use for housing. That is the type of thing which Clause 1 covers.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Is that for one-time transactions or long-term transactions, or could it be used for both?


John B. Stewart: Clause 1 can and does apply to Canada Post, for instance.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Would it be possible for this provision under paragraph (b) to be used for work on private property with a no strings attached sort of approach? In other words, can it be used for expenditures on private property which is leased by the Government with no strings attached so that if the lease runs out or the property is returned, there is no recompense to the Government?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I believe not. I think that these specific instances mentioned by the Hon. Member would be covered under criminal law, et cetera.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: No, I speak specifically of property which is leased by private individuals or companies to the Government. It says that the Minister has the right to do housekeeping work or exercise far-reaching undertakings which would change the status of that particular property. Will there be strings attached to those changes if they are done on private property? Or will that property just return to the private owner at the end of the lease period without any recompense to the Government, if a large amount of money has been expended?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, it would, of course, depend on what was written in the contract. In the normal course of events the improvements would stay with the community or person involved.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: That is exactly what we and the Auditor General have been talking about. Under those circumstances it is quite possible to sweeten the deal during the time of the lease and in that way provide a certain amount of patronage to an individual or corporation. Will the Government give us some indication that these kinds of expenditures by the Minister of Public Works will provide for some recompense if at the end of a lease period the property is returned at double its value to the individual or corporation concerned?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, in my experience most of these things normally come under the term "leasehold improvements". We cannot act like the private sector, as the Hon. Member is aware, but we can write very indelibly into any contract the necessary measures to protect the public.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Let us take a particular situation. If the Department decided it wanted to change some property and required the permission of the owner, what would be done? Subclause (3) requires that no services or work may be
performed in relation to property not belonging to Canada without the consent of the owner. That is perfectly acceptable. What would be the Minister's position if the owner said that he could not accept this particular change to his property even if we had a 20-year lease? Would the Minister have any alternatives in that kind of situation?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, it would depend on the terms of the contract. This clause says very clearly that nothing can be done without the consent of the owner. You cannot run a road through someone's property if they do not want it there. In the case of the seawall, if the community had not wanted it there to help bring forward affordable housing, then of course they would have said no. But it was to their advantage to say yes. As I said, it would depend on the terms of the contract. We are not trying to railroad anything through in this Bill, by any means. That is why this clause is there.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: In most cases the changes are being carried out on behalf of another department, so where will the funds come from? Will they come from Public Works' budget or the budget of another department?


John B. Stewart: Well, it depends, Mr. Chairman, on the circumstances. Canada Post, for argument's sake, would pay the Department. So it depends on the circumstances.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: There is a lot of similarity between this and Section 5 of the Public Works Act. Why does this particular section need to be changed? What is the difference between this particular section and the powers under Section 35 of the Act?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, as far as I can gather here it covers a transfer of property from the Minister of Transport to Public Works or from Canada Post to Public Works.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Does that mean that the Minister of Public Works, through this particular change in the Act, is taking on a great deal of responsibility which other Ministers had for their buildings? What is really the relationship between this clause and Section 35?


John B. Stewart: I think it is a reciprocal agreement between departments where they want the department to take on the management of the property in question, as in the case with the post office.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Chairman, the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that we should be more concerned to ask questions about potential waste associated with this Government rather than the previous Government. Will the Parliamentary Secretary undertake either to report back or have the Minister report back to the House on the complications which might have arisen and the consequent increases in costs associated with the freeze imposed on a vast number of Public Works projects in the aftermath of the new Government taking power?


John B. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
December 17, 1984


Steven W. Langdon: If I could simply expand briefly on that point, there have certainly been cases in our constituencies of projects which have incurred significant costs in the period leading up to the election and, indeed, after the election which, because of the decision to freeze the projects for a period of time, are now in a kind of catch-22 situation. Because of the cut-backs for next year there is no possibility of these projects being run through-on to next year's budget. We do not have enough time left in this particular fiscal year to complete those projects. In at least one case of which I am aware this is more than a possibility, it is a very strong probability. Projects which have incurred significant start-up costs will now be suspended for a period of up to three years because of budgetary constraints. Had they been carried forward according to the original schedule there would be no problem with completing them this fiscal year and the start-up costs incurred would not be wasted. I am deeply concerned that the start-up costs in a number of these projects will, indeed, end up wasted.


Marcel Danis: Order. It being one o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, since 1955 Canada has conducted mid-decade censuses. The censuses provide important data to all sectors of government and business. This information is used to assess population movements which affect transfer payments, to assess labour market trends, income distribution, living conditions, and many other things.
The information from censuses helps businesses make marketing decisions. The officials of the Minister of Supply and Services admitted that various organizations have protested the cancellation of the 1986 census, but they would not name the associations. One of those joining the list of those protesting the cancellation of the 1986 census is the Canadian Home Builders Association. The Association has 5,000 members, and
their objections to the cancellation of the 1986 census are representative of the protests of many others.
As one of their research people is quoted as saying in the Ottawa Citizen:
The cancellation of the 1986 census means the loss of an essential benchmark on housing data. This benchmark now will not be available until 1992.
The article continues:
The cut to the census which provides free data to everyone, means that only large housing companies will be able to get the necessary information because they have enough money to hire market research firms.
Statistics Canada officials confirmed that businesses request special compilations of census data. The Government is ignoring their needs.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, in the report of the chief actuary of the Department of Insurance tabled in the House of Commons this year attention is focused on the serious underfunding of the Canada Pension Plan. If contribution rates are not increased, costs of benefits and expenses will exceed contributions next year. The CPP account would grow until 1994 and then would start to decline. The account would be exhausted by the year 2004, which is just 20 years hence.
Benefit levels and contribution rates cannot be altered under existing legislation without provincial agreement. Therefore I would urge both the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and his provincial counterparts to take urgent action to preserve the integrity of the Canada Pension Plan. If changes are not made now, there will be no funds left in 20 years with which to pay pensions to those Canadians who are now, by law, obliged to contribute hard-earned cash into the scheme.



PETRO-CANADA ACQUISITION OF PETROFINA-ALLEGATION CONCERNING PROFITS

Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, on February 25, 1981, I called in the House for a special federal inquiry into the share transactions on the Petro-Canada-Petrofina deal. I was prompted to do so by an Insiders Report filed with the Ontario Securities Commission in 1981 which showed that four officers of Petrofina had, through the sale of stock options and shares in the short period leading up to the take-over, made excessive profits in excess of $400,000. In March of 1981 I raised the matter again in the House, calling

December 17, 1984
it "Lotofina". I suggested that the matter be referred to the National Resources and Public Works Committee for investigation. I raised the matter again in June of 1981. In June of 1982 I put 13 questions on the Order Paper. One of the questions asked about the share options of one Pierre Nadeau.
It is time we got to the bottom of this matter and found out what really happened in that deal. In light of the fact that 91 employees are alleged to have made $10.3 million in profits, and that Mr. Nadeau himself made $1 million, 1 suggest that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs look into the trading of Petrofina's shares on the New York, Tokyo, and London stock exchanges at the time of the sale. Second, I suggest that Maurice Strong and Pierre Nadeau appear before the National Resources Committee. Finally, I suggest that we should think of establishing, in Canada, a National Securities Exchange Commission such as exists in the United States through which we could look into these matters and get to the bottom of the deal.


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



ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, the Inuit have used and occupied the lands and waters of the Arctic for generations. Because of this they are negotiating a comprehensive aboriginal rights settlement with the federal Government. This process of negotiation, also referred to as land claims, is designed to define the rights, ownership of lands, and cash compensation for lands for which title has been relinquished. The focus on the possession of land and other terrestrially based rights neglects an important part of the claim that involves the offshore.
The most recent federal policy statement on land claims, in all fairness, makes no reference to aboriginal rights in the offshore. In light of Inuit dependence on the offshore, and the fact that our rights have yet to be defined, I find the exclusion of any reference to the offshore to be somewhat disturbing. Most of my constituents are heavily dependent upon the sea. In fact all communities, with the exception of one, are located on the coast. I would like to see a clear recognition of this need as government policy.
In the past Inuit have been used to affirm Canada's sovereignty. Inuit were cited as the reason for forming the Arctic Islands Game Preserve, and were relocated from northern Quebec to the islands north of the Northwest Passage to reaffirm sovereignty in the 1950s. Inuit welfare was cited in the preamble to the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act as one of the reasons for the passage of the Act.
I would therefore like recognition from the Government that Inuit aboriginal rights claims to the offshore will be recognized-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, on November 8 of this year, the Government made a commitment to create an economic climate that would be favourable for investment and economic development. Since then, the Government has succeeded in creating another kind of climate, a climate of anxiety, uncertainty and insecurity, especially among pensioners who are drawing old age security pensions.
Within the last few days, the question that cropped up most frequently among most of my constituents was the following: Are they going to cut our pensions? Mr. Speaker, how are we supposed to answer this question and reassure these people, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) says that "at least in his mind", the universality of family allowances and old age security pensions is a thing of the past? Mr. Speaker, what do you think Christmas is going to be like for these people, a season that should be full of joy and peace? If this Government has any heart, it should take steps to correct this situation and give all Canadian pensioners the same feeling of security they had before. Wishing them happiness is not enough. We must have positive statements on old age security pensions and the assurance that these will not be cut.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, on July 4 and 5, 1984, the P.C. Party met at Prince Albert. The results were announced by our Leader in a statement that has become known as the "Prince Albert Declaration". That document embodies the emancipation of western Canada after years of shameful Liberal neglect.
At Prince Albert we said that no rail branch-line would be tampered with until the legislative review of the Western Grain Transportation Act was completed in 1985-86 and all other options and innovations for continued branch-line use had been explored. In 1980 the Canadian Transport Commission ruled that portions of the Shamrock and Gravelbourg sub-divisions in my constituency of Swift Current-Maple
December 17, 1984

Creek should form part of the basic rail network. The previous Government assured the producers of the Hallonquist and McMahon areas that the necessary Order in Council would be passed to enact that decision. These same Liberals, who now pretend to criticize the Government, did not pass that Order in Council. The previous Minister of Transport said he would, but he did not, thus causing the producers years of anxiety.
I am pleased to announced that the Government, which has a Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) who understands the West, has now passed the Order in Council. The rail line from Hodgeville to Tyson to Hak will be guaranteed to the year 2000. Mr. Speaker, that is another P.C. promise kept. The historic words of Prince Albert ring true. The loyalty and trust that western Canadians have placed in our hands will continue to be honoured.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the events at Bhopal have focused world attention on the agony of death from pesticide poisoning as more than 2,000 people died horrible deaths. 1 want to raise the consciousness of the House to the everyday pesticide poisonings that occur amongst the world's farmers. Six thousand farmers, more than three times as many as died at Bhopal, are killed by pesticides every year.
In addition, more than 500,000 farmers are poisoned by pesticides each year. Some recover; some are harmed permanently. These poisonings occur in the developed countries as well, but the majority occur in the underdeveloped countries. The chemical industry says that the reason is illiteracy, but it is also due to a reduction in legislative requirements restricting usage in those countries. Chemicals not permitted here because testing has shown them to be unsafe to the users are used in less developed countries.
In addition to reduced regulation, newly industrialized countries like Mexico, Brazil, and India have tough import taxes to stimulate the growth of domestic chemical industries. They are, to use a familiar phrase, open for business. I urge the House to take action on the clear need for adequate testing, and the inception of a policy to monitor the cumulative effects upon humans who must handle farm pesticides in the fields in our country so that eventually we will know the effects on users and avoid this continued needless waste of farmers' lives.


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



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, most races from the most ancient times to the present have prohibited murder and severely punished offenders.
First degree murder by definition means "the unlawful killing of one or more human beings, by another or others with malice aforethought".
One can easily realize that in this age of violent weaponry, murder is made all too easy.
One cannot exist in a society where one's self or one's family and friends are at the mercy of those who go about casually taking lives.
The stupid, the evil, and yes, some who are insane, seek to solve their real or imagined problems with murder. And they have also been known to commit murder for no reason at all.
Murder, Mr. Speaker, bears the highest priority for any nation in social prevention and retaliation.
There are crimes committed against others which cannot be waived or forgotten. Murder is such a crime.
Therefore it is my hope that the people of Canada will soon be given the satisfaction for which they have been clamoring since capital punishment was abolished in 1976, the satisfaction of a free vote, and 1 emphasize a free vote, which was not certainly the case in 1976, on capital punishment, the outcome of which, I believe, would satisfy the majority of the people of Canada.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House, and to the attention of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), who is in the House right now, that the CBC, in closing down and announcing the closure of radio station CBG in Gander, is violating the terms of union between the Province of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada. Term 31 reads;
At the date of Union, or as soon thereafter as practicable, Canada will take over the following services-
Sub-clause (k) reads:
The public radio broadcasting system-
CBG was operative at that time. Later on in Term 33 we read "radio stations" at the time of union. In sub-clause (i) it reads:
-real and personal property of the Broadcasting Corporation of Newfoundland-
I am asking the Minister of Communications to intervene and use his power under the Broadcasting Act to reverse the decision taken by the CBC simply because, Mr. Speaker, it

December 17, 1984
Oral Questions
violates the terms of union between a province and the federal Government.
Let me also remind the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski) that in increasing the rates across the Gulf they cannot be increased beyond the rates charged by rail because of Term 32 in the terms of union between Newfoundland and the Government of Canada.
I wish that some of these cabinet Ministers would really check into the terms of union that certain provinces have with the federal Government and not make such bad mistakes as they are making now.



AGRICULTURE


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker; the trend towards the complete elimination of lead in gasoline is another example of how our society is becoming more and more urban-oriented to the disadvantage of rural Canada.
On December 31, 1983, the then Liberal Environment Minister announced his decision to proceed with a reduction in the lead content in leaded gasoline from its existing level of 0.77 gram per litre to a standard of 0.29 gram per litre by January 1, 1987. I recognize that there are advantages such as to health and pollution control with unleaded gasoline, but there are also some disadvantages. For example, it costs, according to Environment Canada, 0.3 cents more per litre to produce unleaded gas, and also about 160 jobs in the Canadian lead additive manufacturing industry will be lost. And a gigantic disadvantage will be the cost to our farmers.
Millions of dollars have been spent on farm machinery that requires leaded gas. Will the farmers have to write off this tremendous cost? Who will pay for the new machinery? The enormous burden this will place on our farmers seems to be ignored.
Agriculture can only stand so much, and if we keep adding costs to the production of food we will eliminate, through the back door, our family farms.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, fundamental to the operations of Parliament is the accepted and understood principle that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet not only speak the truth but do so with one voice. You cannot have the Prime Minister saying one thing, his Finance Minister
something else, and now his Health Minister something else again.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You were the experts when in government.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Finance. You were quoted as having said that upper and middle-income social programs cannot be afforded today, yet that position was repudiated in Question Period on Friday by your own Prime Minister.
Does the Finance Minister stand by his statement and, if so, who is telling the truth?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement in an interview, which was in the context of the things that were said in the agenda paper that was issued on November 8, as well as-


Ms. Copps:: It was on tape.


Geoff Wilson: -in the context of my statement on that same night. There is no question that the background has been clearly established there.
What I was saying, and what the Prime Minister was saying when we were in the House on Friday, is that we are committed to a full consultation on the programs that were under discussion on Friday, a full consultation with Canadians to see whether those programs could be better directed so that the needy in our communities would receive a greater degree of benefit and that, through the tax system, we could redirect some of those moneys-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Some?


Geoff Wilson: -that now are being gained by upper income Canadians and put that in the hands of those who need it the most. That is the principle we are following and that is the principle to which we are committed.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, is the Finance Minister now saying, with respect to that same interview, in which he said that his mind was already made up on what he wanted to do with family allowances, is your mind made up-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: -on the position that your Prime Minister has stated to this House, or is it made up about your position in the interview-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: -or is it now going to be made up on the basis, Mr. Speaker, of the position taken by the Health Minister?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is misquoting what I said in that interview. I
December 17, 1984

never said my mind was made up. The mind of this Government is not made up. We have embarked on a full consultative process that I hope the Hon. Member will be a part of in a positive, open, and productive way.


Mr. Gauthier:: Did you tape it?


Geoff Wilson: We are saying that it is important that we receive the views of Canadians as to how we go about the principle that I established, that 1 set out in my first answer, that of taking some of the moneys now being received as a net benefit and, working through the tax system, redirecting it to those who need it the most.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Some?


Geoff Wilson: 1 ask the Hon. Member to approach this matter in a more positive, open, and productive way than has been the case to date.


REPORTS OF MINISTER'S STATEMENTS
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, when questioned on Friday, the Prime Minister indicated that he felt his Finance Minister's statements had been distorted by the press. My question is for the Finance Minister. Is he suggesting himself that Canadian Press distorted his statements that he made on record?


Geoff Wilson: 1 will say this, Mr. Speaker, that there were statements attributed to me in that interview that were distorted, distorted by himself and distorted by Members of the New Democratic Party in the way that the questions were posed on Friday. I watched the total tape of Friday's Question Period. That's where the distortions occurred, and that's where the Prime Minister was referring to the distortion.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Is it accurate or not accurate?


Geoff Wilson: What I have said today is very, very clear. I hope the Hon. Member will think back to what he said during the election period when he was a Minister of the Crown, when he was saying exactly the same thing, that the Government then was in favour of redirecting some of those savings from the upper income brackets to those in lower income brackets, through the tax system.


INCOME LEVEL-REPORTED CUT-OFF POINT
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is distorted in this House is the position of the three Ministers on the government side of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: My question is for the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, does the Right Hon. Prime Minister agree with his Minister of National Health and Welfare who said last Friday that an annual income of $26,000 is being considered as the cut-off point for universal benefits? Does he agree with a Conservative policy that would sacrifice more than half of the Canadian population?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: First of all, I wish to welcome the Hon. Member after her extraordinary performance in the Ontario by-elections.
The Hon. Member is clearly, though perhaps inadvertently, twisting the Minister's words. What we are trying to do with some measure of success and after consultation, I hope, is to find a formula for allocating more money to the neediest in our society-those who really need help.
It seems to me that this is an honest issue that deserves to be considered in a sensible manner.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister, the Johnny Carson of the Canadian House. Two-thirds of Canadians-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is-


Mr. Dick:: Back to Queen's Park.


Sheila Maureen Copps: At Queen's Park the Government took its responsibilities at least as seriously, if not more seriously, than you are doing in this case.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Two-thirds of Canadians today fear losing their jobs. Now he and his Government are saying that they are considering cutting off family allowances and old age pensions to more than 50 per cent of working Canadians. Is this the Conservative Christmas present to Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, may I say, with respect, to my hon. friend, that I am somewhat mystified as to why a comment like that would be made when in point of fact it bears no resemblance to anything said by a Minister of the Crown or to any intentions of the Government. All we are trying to do is to share declining resources, modest resources, with those in our society who need it most-the disadvantaged, the widows, those people who need assistance. We are trying to be helpful to them, and we hope that you would help us rather than criticize.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 17, 1984
Oral Questions


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER-PRIME MINISTER'S REPLY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the question of distortion. The Minister of Finance said a minute ago that there was distortion on this side of the House on Friday. I say to him that the only side of the House on which there was distortion on Friday was from the government benches, including the Prime Minister himself.
My question, specifically for the Prime Minister, concerns a reply which he gave to the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor in the House. It was a question about what the Minister of Finance said outside. The Minister of Finance said outside the House that "upper and middle-income social programs cannot be afforded today". I was in Toronto. I heard it on the radio. I subsequently checked three newspapers. All attributed these precise words to the Minister of Finance.
Considering that the Prime Minister said in the House, and I quote, "the Finance Minister never said that", will he now take the occasion to withdraw his comments?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that my hon. friend was not here on Friday because, had he been here, he would have gotten the flavour of the entire exchange which dealt with a very serious question of context. For example, in the discussion paper set forward by the Minister of Finance on November 8-and I think in fairness my hon. friend would agree that it bears upon the subject matter-it states:
The Government agrees that a frank and open discussion is timely, and that there is considerable scope for improving and redesigning social programs based on the twin tests of social and fiscal responsibility. Social responsibilily dictates that wherever possible, and to a greater extent than is the case today, scarce resources should be diverted first to those in greatest need.


John Edward Broadbent: What does that have to do with the question?


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is the fundamental point which was set out by the Minister of Finance on November 8. It bears importantly on the context within which the exchange took place on Friday. This Government has been thoroughly consistent from November 8 to today in defending those who need help in our society.


REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister took another minute and a half to say nothing. He once again gave us his puff 'n stuff routine. He didn't deal with the question. I am going to ask him once again, since what is involved here is a very important matter of trust, since all kinds of reporters, Members of Parliament, as well as a majority, or a good number of Canadians, heard the Minister of Finance say what he said, once again will the Prime Minister take the occasion now to correct the record and withdraw the words that he uttered last Friday in the House when he said, "the Finance Minister never said that"?


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, why would I withdraw something that is completely true? I was indicating, in the absence of my hon. friend, that the context was very important. For example, on Question Period, the television program, Mr. McDermott of the CLC said on December 9 that they can get at these people and I think everyone will agree they don't need it. He said Trudeau doesn't need the baby bonus for his children-get at people like that through the tax system, and get it back from them that way without tinkering with the universal aspect of it. That is exactly what we are trying to do. If we got help and mature debate from my hon. friends, we could make progress in this area. The people of Canada understand what we are trying to do, and I am surprised at my hon. friend's persistent refusal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has seen nothing yet. You just start tampering with those social programs and you'll see a political fight like you've never seen before in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Since the Prime Minister had the occasion to withdraw his comments, and since what is at stake is both the integrity of our social programs and the trust of the Prime Minister, I say with care he has deliberately misled the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Oshawa knows that I must ask him to withdraw that comment.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Do you have any respect for this institution?


John Edward Broadbent: I have a lot of respect for this institution. I have never, especially with the Prime Minister, said what I just did. The Prime Minister had two occasions to correct the record. I am interested in truth. I wish he were.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He really wants you to name him, Mr. Speaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No respect for Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are now into a parliamentary matter. I ask the Hon. Member one more time to take the occasion, if he would, please, to withdraw the comment he has just made.


John Edward Broadbent: No.
December 17, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the Hon. Member knows full well that I am left no choice but to name the Member. For the sake of Hon. Members, what 1 must do now is name the Hon. Member for Oshawa for disregarding a direct request from the Chair. He is, therefore, in a position of disrespect of the Chair itself.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret, because of the respect we hold for this institution, that I am obliged to move the following motion-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: How about the three weeks you walked out?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I move, seconded by the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister:
That the Hon. Member for Oshawa be-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot hear the motion of the Hon. Government House Leader because of the noise in the House. We are now in a very deep parliamentary matter. Could I please have quiet? I have named the Hon. Member for Oshawa.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You guys walked out for three weeks. That is some respect for Parliament.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, should 1 repeat the motion?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. The Chair did not hear the Hon. Member.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I move, seconded by the Deputy Prime Minister:
That the Hon. Member for Oshawa be removed from this Chamber for the balance of this day.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is not debatable and cannot be amended. The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. I must direct the Hon. Member for Oshawa to withdraw in compliance with the order which the House has just made.
And Mr. Broadbent having withdrawn:

December 17, 1984
Petitions


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have received notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). I must advise him that I must take it, given the substance, as a point of order, but we will take it now.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, as you say, I had notified you about a statement that was reported in Hansard on Friday, at page 1238. In this ongoing parliamentary examination as to where the truth lies, I suggest that the statement made on Friday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), suggesting that I had wilfully distorted the comments of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), were a matter of privilege. I have now received a communication from the Prime Minister saying he will withdraw the matter. Therefore, my question of privilege would be ended at that point in time if the Prime Minister would in fact take that action.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend conveyed to me this morning his intention to raise as being unparliamentary the words that I used on Friday, which were, I believe, "wilfully distorted". I was advised that indeed that phrase is unparliamentary and earlier today, at 12.30 or one o'clock when I found out about it, 1 immediately wrote to my hon. friend conveying my apologies for the use of that phrase and indicating my intention to apologize to the House.
I believe that the magnificence of Parliament can function only when the Speaker's rulings are sustained and when Members display appropriate humility and understanding. So without hesitation I convey an apology to my hon. friend and I withdraw that phrase.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is respect for Parliament.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from several thousand people calling for the automatic early release program to be withdrawn, for tougher bail and parole laws to be enforced, for tougher penalties for violent crime, especially rapists, child molesters and murderers to be enforced, and for life sentences to be in fact life sentences.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to present a petition to this House on behalf of approximately 100 constituents from the Prince Albert area who ask that the Parliament of Canada reject any proposal to deregulate Canada's telephone service. These Canadians are satisfied with the current telephone service and feel that deregulation would result in poorer and costlier service. Therefore, the undersigned call upon this House to stop deregulation of telephone service.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present two petitions from groups of residents of the town of Sackville who deplore the cuts in the Canadian Wildlife Service. These cuts mean the total curtailment of research activities on the effect of bud-worm spray and the toxicology program that monitors the build-up of toxics in the ecosystem. They humbly call upon Parliament to reinstate the programs of the Canadian Wildlife Service.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by constituents in the Barwick, Emo and Fort Frances areas of my riding requesting that the Criminal Code be amended so that unborn human beings are afforded legal protection.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 3,784 residents of the City of Woodstock and environs who are dismayed at the possible loss of the King Truck Engineering Canada Limited firm in Woodstock due to financial difficulties. They hope that when a suitable financial package is put together the federal and provincial Governments will come to their assistance if appropriate.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Introduction of Bills
December 7, 1984-Mr. Dick-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the House of Commons Act and the Canada Elections Act (by-elections)".
December 7, 1984-Mr. Dick-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (partisan poll officers)".
December 7, 1984-Mr. Dick-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Interest Act".
December 7, 1984-Mr. Dick-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reporting names of accused)".
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw all the Bills that are listed in my name.
December 17, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: Technically that takes the consent of the House so I will assume that the House agrees with the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick).


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Orders discharged and Bills withdrawn.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be allowed answered today: Nos. 11, 23 and 41.


Mr. Howie: 1.	In the fiscal year ending March 31 (a) 1981 (b) 1982 (c) 1983, what were the names of persons or firms who supplied trucks for hauling gravel at CFB Gagetown, New Brunswick, and what amount was paid?
2.	For each Fiscal year, what were the names of persons or firms who supplied bulldozers and/or front end loaders for this purpose and what amount was paid?
3.	In each case, were tenders called and did tender specifications indicate a required volume capacity for the trucks?
4.	Were payments made for the time on the job or for the volume of material conveyed and what was the reason for the method of payment?


Hon. Robert C. Coates (Minister of National Defence):: Supplier	Local Hire	Supply & Services1. (a) D. R. Noble	50,492	Contract 171,118J. D. Cogswell	-	15,648B. MacDonald	4,620	-D. & J. Enterprises	6,960	-G. Phillips	546	-(b) D. R. Noble	76,836	198,839C. T. Charters	107,172	17,280(c) C. T. Charters	-	173,2592. (a) Brick Hill Eqpt. Ltd.	6,715	-Ideal Electric Ltd.	301	-D. R. Noble	19,735	-G. Phillips	6,000	-D. & R. Sutherland	2,600	-Tractors & Eqpt. (1962) Ltd.	15,000	62,313(b) D. R. Noble	21,340	_Brick Hill Eqpt. Ltd.	16,200	-Ludford	1,735	-M. E. Phillips	15,000	-Tractor & Eqpt. (1962) Ltd.	-	70,437(c) C. T. Charters	2,400	3,746D. R. Noble	-	1,484Landall Ltd.	-	944Tractors & Eqpt. (1962) Ltd.	-	24,050
3. For all Supply and Services Canada (SSC) contracts/ Standing Offer Ageeements with stated volume specification tenders were called. For local hire all dump truck rentals are
Order Paper Questions
obtained off SSC one time contract or standing offer. SSC does not advertise in newspaper but as it pertains to CFB Gagetown SSC requests bids from 23 companies in the Gage-town region. Those invited to bid are taken from a locally complied suppliers list. In order to be placed on such a list suppliers must apply in writing in accordance with SSC brochure "Selling to Supply and Services Canada". Furthermore it is confirmed that on one from NB has been refused listing.
4. The method of payment is usually on a time basis, i.e., per hour, per week or per month, etc. Dump truck hire is to replace NDN-owned vehicles undergoing maintenance or to meet peak workload periods. Primary usage is on small maintenance projects scattered over an 1100 square km area and often shifted from job site to job site on a daily basis. To charge the hire on a ton mile basis would require a large number of weight scales or the constant move of portable scales which would produce costly time delays. Gravel pits available for use on Base are small and widely scattered. For a single project, different types of gravel/sand could be required thus compounding scale problems. The pits are operated by DND personnel and equipment. If the operation is slow, the supplier is subject to a decrease in revenue if hired on a ton mile or volume mile basis. The only two instances where time hire rates were not used involved projects under the total operation of the supplier. One was on a project/lot basis for construction and the other was on a volume basis for stockpiling gravel.


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed by the Department of National Defence?


Robert Carman Coates: There are 64 legally qualified officers of the Canadian Armed Forces including the Judge Advocate General (JAG). In addition, there are three civilian lawyers of the Department of Justice who are currently seconded to the office of the JAG for such duties as he may assign.


Mr. Howie: Did any persons partcipate in Cadet programs at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown during the summer of 1984 and, if so, how many?


Robert Carman Coates: Yes. During summer 1984 a total of 1,052 cadets participated in the Summer Cadet Camp Argonaut at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

December 17, 1984
Public Works Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in Committee of Bill C-13, an Act to amend the Public Works Act and the Public Lands Grants Act-Mr. Hnatyshyn (for Minister of Public Works)-Mr. Danis in the chair.
On Clause 1-Other properties
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Chairman, I have one more question on Clause 1 before we leave it. Earlier I asked the Parliamentary Secretary about where the money would come from, the budget of Public Works or of the Department. I also asked whether or not the Minister of Public Works would proceed with changes to property without the consent of the people who are operating or using the building.
I will ask the question by assuming a hypothetical situation. I am not sure whether this is correct, but I presume that if a building occupied by a post office were to be repaired in some way the post office would be charged for it. What if the post office decided it would not pay for it? Would Public Works proceed under those circumstances anyway? Would you proceed with the repair of a building over which you had jurisdiction but which you did not operate?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, if the Hon. Member will look at the explanatory notes he will see that it says "management, charge or direction, and also, with the consent of the owner". It is very clear. With regard to the second part of the question, they do not operate anything that they do not have a contract with. There is a contract with the post office for any buildings that Public Works operates.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: It seems to me that the amendment could work out so that the Minister of Public Works could be required, in the case of saving a building which belonged to the Crown, to do repairs on it while the people operating the building would not give their consent to do so. What would you do in that case? Would you proceed with the repairs without consent?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the building belongs to the Crown. I do not understand the relevancy of the question. The building belongs to the Crown so the Crown would do what it has to do.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: But the repairs would be charged to each different department?


John B. Stewart: Could be, yes.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this opportunity to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary.
A number of very long-term leases have been entered into by the Department of Public Works with private lessors. Although the amount of rent that has been charged may have been a fair market value 15 years ago, it is now no longer a fair market value. In fact, in several circumstances with which I am familiar, the amount of rent paid by DPW does not even cover the local taxes. The owners of buildings are finding themselves in a very serious predicament. There is, I understand, authority for the Government to renegotiate leases of this type. The previous Government was certainly not prepared to do that. I do not know of one instance in which it did that. As a result, some of these buildings have been run down, especially residential buildings which have been leased to the Government. No maintenance has been done on them because there is no money coming in to the landlord. Could we be advised of the position of the new Government with respect to this problem? Will it be prepared to renegotiate leases even though there might not be a strict legal requirement for it to do so?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for the question. Of course, the leases he is talking about are under contract to the Government. That can be changed by Treasury Board. I will have to	take the question as	notice	and ask theMinister whether he	will be taking such	cases	to	Treasury
Board for renegotiation.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On Clause 2-Lease on other disposition of Public Works


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why Clause 2 is in the Bill at all.


John B. Stewart: Mr.	Chairman, once again it	is	a simplehousekeeping matter.	As the explanatory	note	to	Clause 2
says:
This amendment would provide for the lease or other disposition of public works in which the Crown retains occupancy rights.
It is that simple.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Does that mean that you did not have that authority before?


John B. Stewart: In essence, yes.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: If that is the case, all of the lease-purchase agreements in the past have not been legal agreements.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, no, that is not the case. It was an interpretation which used to come before the Speaker for clarification. This would mean that this will not have to happen in the future.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: If the process of lease-purchase was legal before, why are these clauses being put in there at all? If you have been doing it, you should have had that authority before.
December 17, 1984

All you are doing here is putting into the clause another legal requirement.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, previously this was implied. It is now spelled out clearly and in detail without any doubt as to what is meant by the Act.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, one would think that after the Auditor General's report and his comments about lease-purchase this kind of clause would be left out and the authority for lease-purchase would be taken away. The Auditor General states specifically that the cost of lease-purchase is considerably more than any other method of getting space and that the full cost of future funding requirements arising from acquisition of real properties through lease-purchase are not being disclosed to Parliament.
I think that in this case we are adding to something that the Auditor General thinks is bad and which the Department was not sure whether it had the authority to do but which it had been doing. Now we are making it legal for the Department to do it. At least, we are clearing away some of the smoke so that it can do it with that legality in the Act. That is my interpretation of your answer. It would seem to me that this is not the time to be giving further powers to the Department for lease-purchase considering the cloud that has been put over lease-purchase by the Auditor General's report.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, we are speaking about a recommendation of the Auditor General. As I said this morning, the Minister has been touring Canada from coast to coast to get a handle on this Department which has been grossly neglected. For example, the Minister addressed 350 people in the Department of Public Works in Toronto who had not seen a Minister of Public Works in 10 years. That is the kind of negligence that went on in that Department. The Minister is travelling from coast to coast listening to the people in Public Works, the Auditor General and Treasury Board. I stated that this morning. I do not know how many times I must say it to get it through your head. When the Minister comes back and has had time to digest what he is attempting to do, he will be making recommendations to see that that Department works in the manner in which it should.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, it would be helpful to see the Minister of Public Works in this House listening in this Chamber. Maybe that is an old fashioned notion, but it is one that should be respected.
I want to deal with the question of lease-purchase which is the essence of this clause. In connection with this, I would like to move an amendment to this clause and seek your guidance, Mr. Chairman, as to whether I should speak before or after I move the amendment.


Marcel Danis: Go ahead.


Cyril Keeper: I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert:
Public Works Act
That Clause 2 of Bill C-13 be amended by adding a new section 39.2 as follows:
39.2 Within 90 days of any lease and occupancy agreement or lease-purchase agreement being entered into under the provision of Section 39.1, the
Minister shall report to Parliament the full cost and funding requirements
related to the lease.
The reason I move this amendment has to do with the cost overruns identified by the Auditor General with regard to the practice of lease-purchase and also, more specifically, because the Auditor General himself has recommended this sort of action. On page 13-19 of his report, the Auditor General makes this recommendation:
The Department of Public Works should disclose to Parliament the full cost and future funding requirements arising from acquisition of properties through lease-purchases.
I am attempting to do what I asked the Government to assure us of this morning. I have asked the Government numerous questions in this Chamber. I have asked it to take some specific action that would ensure that that kind of cost overruns would not be repeated in the future. We have had no more than general assurances from the Parliamentary Secretary.
This is a specific recommendation which addresses a couple of things. It addresses the concerns of the Auditor General about the administration of real estate by the Government, a specific recommendation he made. Second, it addresses the general concern about Treasury Board having adequate information in order to make decisions with regard to lease-purchase arrangements.
In his report the Auditor General has made the claim that the Department of Public Works withheld information from the federal Cabinet two years ago when it leased three downtown office buildings from Campeau Corporation for a total of $400 million. The transactions resulted in unfavourable terms that cost the Canadian people more than $50 million and in the missed opportunity to obtain a $46.5 million building for $15 million. This lack of information has cost the Canadian taxpayer large sums of money.
By moving this amendment what we are doing is ensuring that all the information is on the table when the decisions are made. This will act as a prod to make sure that the Department of Public Works provides all information to the Treasury Board so that when it makes decisions with regard to lease-purchase arrangements, Treasury Board will have all the information before it.
The concern about lease-purchase is that there are large sums of money tied up in lease-purchase arrangements, some $1,919 billion. The way we handle these arrangements is very crucial. These arrangements have already led to excess costs for the taxpayer. For example, as I said this morning, a study of four lease-purchase agreements in the Ottawa area resulted in the cost being $85.8 million more over a 35 year period than otherwise would have been the case. The way the Government up to now has been handling lease-purchase arrangements has meant increased costs for the Canadian taxpayer.

December 17, 1984
Public Works Act
I have asked the Government over and over again to give specific recommendations, to tell us just how it is going to avoid such extra costs for the taxpayer. The Government has come up with nothing specific today. We feel compelled to offer some concrete suggestion, at least in one area, where these overruns might be avoided in the future.
We are asking this Government to put in place a procedure whereby, after the Government has signed a lease-purchase arrangement, it would be required 90 days thereafter to share the information with the Elouse of Commons as to the costs entailed in these lease-purchase arrangements.


Marcel Danis: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. But the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate is rising on a point of order.


George Baker: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member read an amendment then proceeded to discuss it. As I understand it, the very basic requirement of parliamentary procedure is that the Chair, first, has to rule whether an amendment is admissible before the Hon. Member can engage in a discussion of such an amendment.


Marcel Danis: It can be done both ways. In any event, I have just received a copy of the amendment. I will read the amendment now. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre moves:
That Clause 2 of Bill C-13 be amended by adding a new section 39.2 as follows:
39.2 Within 90 days of any lease and occupancy agreement or lease-purchase agreement being entered into under the provision of Section 39.1 the
Minister shall report to Parliament the full cost and future funding requirements related to the lease.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. It is up to the Chair to determine whether that amendment is in order. It would seem to me, on the face of it, that that amendment is not in order for a very simple reason.
Under Clause 2 we are dealing with the case where the Government of Canada, the Crown, is to be the lessor or the vendor. The amendment presented by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre contemplates the very reverse, the case where the Crown is to be the lessee or the purchaser. It does not make sense. The proposed amendment cannot be an amendment to the proposed Clause 39.1 because it just does not make any sense whatever. I hope the Chair will take that argument into account when the determination of the admissibility of the amendment is made.


George Baker: Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary as to the meaning of the last three sentences in the clause under discussion and whether those three sentences mean generally what the Hon. Member is talking about.
In relation to the point of order, I understand the Chair's difficulty in trying to rule on a point of order raised by the Member for Western Arctic in that one would have to be totally aware of what is in the clause, what the intent of the
clause is, and where it is in the Act in order to rule on the amendment put forward by the NDP.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the point of the Hon. Member is already covered in the Bill. The Bill addresses all his concerns. It is just application and the difference between application and technique which we are talking about. What he was talking about in terms of the former Government has no relevance to what is going on now.
The whole matter comes under the normal accounting procedures of the Government of Canada. It already goes to Treasury Board for approval. Therefore I do not see the relevancy of the amendment at all.


Marcel Danis: After having heard the arguments, the Chair rules the amendment in order.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the concerns which I addressed in the amendment were already covered in the legislation. He did not enunciate specifically how they were covered. The purpose of my amendment was to follow on the recommendation of the Auditor General that the cost of lease-purchase arrangements be disclosed to Parliament. The words of the amendment are simply that after the Department of Public Works enters into a lease arrangement, it be required to table that information in the House, that is, the full cost and the future financial requirements of those arrangements, so that the House is made aware of the costs of any lease-purchase arrangement. That should help to prevent any future abuse of the lease-purchase arrangement and to ensure that it is only used when it makes economic sense.
I am surprised that the Conservative Government would not jump at the idea. It is an idea which is very similar to notions which the Conservatives advocated themselves when they were in Opposition, for example, the fact that programs should have sunset provisions. In other words, after a program had run for a period of time, it should automatically come up for review.
The Conservative Party has claimed to be the Party of the House of Commons and to want Parliament to function. Obviously one of the fundamental purposes of the House of Commons is to hold the executive or the Government to account in financial matters. This is a concrete step we could take to prevent waste of public funds in the future. It is a concrete procedure which will ensure that the waste of the past will not be repeated. I would be curious to know why the Parliamentary Secretary would not find this to be a friendly amendment and why he would not be prepared to support it at this point. Maybe he is prepared to support it.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to support the amendment. The Hon. Member should look a little further into the Auditor General's remarks, particularly at paragraph 13.54 on page 13-21 which reads:
The Department should seek clarification of its authority to enter into lease-purchase arrangements including, if appropriate, legislative amendments.
December 17, 1984

All these matters will be reviewed in the Estimates of 1985-86. These prices and costs are submitted to Treasury Board prior to having the project approved. Therefore, I still cannot go along with the amendment.


Cyril Keeper: The legislation before us deals with one recommendation of the Auditor General. It is the recommendation indicating that the authority of the Department of Public Works should be clarified. That is clear, but certainly it does not deal with the need for disclosure to Parliament. Obviously in the past the Estimates of the Department of Public Works went to committee and came before the House of Commons. However, that did not prevent the kind of abuse which the Auditor General documented with regard to lease-purchase arrangements.
We need further provisions which will ensure that public moneys are not wasted. A Government concerned about the dollar would welcome arrangements that would bring to light or bring to public debate the costs and benefits of any lease-purchase arrangement. The specific purpose of my arrangements should be disclosed to Parliament. This amendment would provide a mechanism to ensure that that happens.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the point of the Hon. Member, but will the Government's hands be so tied that it cannot even enter into a contract without coming to the House of Commons? If it is afterwards, then it is too late. If it is afterwards, it will be caught by the Auditor General. What are they trying to do? Are they trying to tie the hands of the Minister so that he cannot do anything? We do not sit in July or August. Many of these things could come up in July and August. Legislation has to be sensible. This would make it completely nonsensical. It is saying that the Government must bring it to the House of Commons. If it is after the fact, what is the difference since it is already in the Bill? If it is before the fact, the Minister could not do a thing on that particular phase before coming to the House of Commons.
We set out the general lines in legislation. If the Minister makes a mistake, he takes the blame for it.


An Hon. Member:: Just like the last one.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, like the last one did. Our Ministers are determined not to make such mistakes. If they do, they will be called to account by the Auditor General and by Members of the House. Let us not tie their hands and say, "Do the job, but we will handcuff you first.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the comments of the Hon. Member for Bow River. That is the point I have been trying to get across since this morning. Just to clarify it, the fact is that Part III of the new Estimates will highlight for fiscal 1985-86 a complete financial disclosure of what the Hon. Member across the way is seeking. Again it comes back to the fact that we have a new Minister who will be going in a new direction with public works in conjunction with Treasury. As I said before, it will all come out in the wash in Part III of the Estimates for 1985-86.
Public Works Act


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to clarify exactly what we are doing under Clause 2. Would the Parliamentary Secretary give us an example of that which is contemplated under Clause 2?
Is it not a situation where the Crown is to be the lessor and some private individual or corporation is to be the lessee? Or is it the circumstance envisaged by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, where the situation is to be the reverse of that and the Government is to be the lessee rather than the lessor?


John B. Stewart: Yes, that is correct.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one or two comments following those of the Hon. Member for Bow River. We are suggesting in this amendment that after the deal has been made, the Department will be required to table the information before the House. The reason is well documented in Chapter 13 of the report of the Auditor General. If the Department has reason for doing it correctly because it will show up immediately, or within 90 days, whether or not it will be a good or a bad deal, rather than waiting from three years to possibly five years for the Auditor General to find it, the Auditor General is saying that we should get it before Parliament as quickly as possible. That is the reason for our amendment.
Also I should like to comment on the fact that it will be in Part III of the Estimates. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that Part III of the Estimates will be a lot better and that possibly it might do what we are trying to do. However, the Auditor General also knows what will happen in Part III of the Estimates, but still he made his recommendation. We think that the recommendation is sound and that the amendment is sound.


Marcel Danis: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Amendment (Mr. Keeper) negatived: Yeas, 4: Nays, 25.


Marcel Danis: Shall clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
December 17, 1984
Investment Canada Act INVESTMENT CANADA ACT

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, December 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Stevens that Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-15 is to replace the Foreign Investment Review Act and the review process it enables the Government to carry out with a new Act creating Investment Canada. The Government says its purpose is to attract foreign investment to Canada and, as a result, create jobs and other benefits for our economy.
The kindest thing I can say about the Bill is that while it may be well-intention, it is thoroughly misguided. In my view, it will not bring the results intended. It will do just the reverse. If the Bill passes, it will seriously weaken the ability of the Government to ensure that the limited kinds of foreign investment covered by the present Foreign Investment Review Act brings real and significant benefits to Canadians, especially when it comes to jobs, but also including such factors as more research and development, more sourcing of parts and components here, and more exports.
Even though the level of foreign control in some sectors here has declined somewhat in recent years, Canada still has more of its economy owned and controlled outside of its borders than any other developed country. Study after study has shown that foreign investment, while it can bring benefits to our economy, has real costs attached to it for Canadians. Yes, it may bring access to markets and new technology and jobs that might not otherwise be here, but the evidence is clear that foreign-controlled firms generally do less research and development in our country. They purchase more of their parts and components outside of Canada and they tend to export less than their Canadian-controlled counterparts.
A recent Statistics Canada report indicates that foreign-controlled firms tend to import substantially more of the parts required for their products than Canadian-controlled firms. The Progressive Conservative Party's task force on Canada's high-tech future issued a report earlier this year. It stated that recent data indicates that research and development intensity of foreign subsidiaries tends to lag behind domestically owned operations of comparable magnitude. All this means a branch plant economy for Canada, one that will not be able to prosper, much less survive effectively in a tough world marketplace which demands of countries and their companies a high degree of efficiency, productivity and innovation.
Foreign direct investment which owns or controls companies and assets in Canada means key decisions about our economic well-being are made outside our borders. It means outflows of interest and dividends to the extent where they help to create and perpetuate balance of payment problems. I have to say that as long as our capital needs cannot be filled from domestic sources, there is certainly a place for foreign capital in Canada, a welcome place to the extent that it brings real
benefits to our economy, to the extent that these benefits can be maximized and their cost minimized.
That is the purpose of the FIRA process. It is not primarily to block foreign direct investment, but to strive to maximize its benefits and to minimize its costs for Canadians, in short, to ensure a good deal for the foreign investors and for Canadians. That it has been able to do this is demonstrated by the high level of approvals, averaging 92 per cent since the process began in 1974. Until recently, at least, this high percentage of approvals was criticized by many as showing that the FIRA process was too lax. In reality, it shows that investors have been able to meet the test of the significant benefit to Canada in such things as more jobs, research and development and exports, either in their original applications or as a result of negotiations by the Government, resulting in a good deal for the investors and for Canada.
This high level of approval helps demonstrate that FIRA has not discouraged or prevented from entering Canada foreign direct investment needed by and beneficial to Canada. This fact is also demonstrated by statistics on foreign capital movements, showing that these inflows in the years after FIRA began operating in 1974 were substantially higher than in the years preceding its beginnings. In fact, foreign direct investment in Canada has steadily increased each year since the FIRA process began in 1974, perhaps dropping somewhat only in the depths of the recession which affected not only Canada, but the entire world. During that recession, capital flows slowed down everywhere, including the United States. However, in the first quarter of 1984, foreign direct investment in Canada reached its highest level in many years.
All of this demonstrates one important point. Capital moves to a country in response to expectation of profits. It comes when investors seek the opportunity to make a profit. Dismantling FIRA, replacing it with a truncated remnant called Investment Canada, will do nothing to respond to this essential point. The Bill does nothing to create more real opportunities for profit by investors.
In any event, FIRA never dealt with more than about 3 per cent of foreign direct investment. It does not deal at all with the largest potential source of foreign investment, the existing foreign-controlled sector in Canada. Projects for expansion, modernization or for new plants by firms already here do not require review and approval by the Government. Investment in the form of loans does not require approval by the Government under FIRA, nor does equity investment in quantities not sufficient to control an enterprise.
To repeat, the Investment Canada Bill does nothing to help our economy offer more prospects to make a profit, more prospects of success to potential investors, whether foreign or Canadian. Nor does it create markets for their production, another factor bringing investment to a country. It does nothing to create consumer or industry demand in Canada or abroad. Using this Bill to dismantle FIRA will not bring more beneficial investment from abroad, either in the limited area covered by the Foreign Investment Review Act-and basically this covers takeovers of companies and new projects by compa-
December 17, 1984

nies not already established here-or the much larger area of the kinds of investment not dealt with by the present FIRA process.
A very serious flaw among the many in the Bill is that while the Government says the new Investment Canada agency will have a mandate to encourage Canadian investment as well as foreign, there is nothing in the Bill offering any real encouragement or incentive to Canadian investment. Yet there is a great potential for more investment by Canadians in their own economy. Canadians have a very high rate of savings; at least twice that of people in the United States. The basic thrust of the Government is to seek out foreign investors to sell off more of our economy abroad rather than to give priority to encouraging our capital needs to be filled from Canadian sources. However, a substantial capacity to do so definitely exists in our country according to studies done by the Investment Dealers' Association.
In September 1981, the President of the Investment Dealers' Association said in part:
Our capacity to generate savings in Canada is now very large and growing quickly. It would appear that some 94 per cent... of the new savings required in the 1980s can be generated in Canada . . . the balance of 6 per cent will have to be imported.
He went on to say:
This reliance on foreign capital will be slightly less than over the past 10 years and indeed on a net basis will disappear entirely mid-way through the 1990s.
Last week, my office asked the staff of the President of the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada if it could update those projections. We were told that they are generally the same except that they would now indicate that 95 per cent rather than 94 per cent of the savings needed for the investment required by our country in the 1980s can be generated right here in Canada.
The Minister has said that Investment Canada will be given the job of going out and encouraging investment in Canada. However, that has always been the job of the entire Department of what is now called Regional Industrial Expansion and its regional offices across Canada, the Department of External Trade, especially its overseas trade commissioner services, as well as other high-tech Departments like Communications. Apparently the Tories intend to change all that and limit the work of the Government in encouraging investment to the tiny agency they intend to call Investment Canada. It will be composed of no more than the present staff of FIRA, some 130 people, many of whom will have to carry out the remnants of the review process that will still exist if this Bill is passed. I submit that the results will be less effort and less real work by the Government to promote beneficial investment for Canada than was the case under the previous Liberal Government.
The decision made by American Motors after it had been taken over by Renault to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in expanding its Brampton, Ontario, plant and to increase jobs there substantially came after negotiations by the previous Liberal Government through its Department of Regional
Investment Canada Act
Industrial Expansion and FIRA. The decision of MBB of Germany to create a joint venture with Fleet Aircraft, a Canadian company, to manufacture helicopters in Fort Erie also came following negotiations by the previous federal Government through Regional Industrial Expansion and the FIRA process. As well, this was generally the case with the deal with Bell Helicopter to establish a plant near Montreal. This also involved investments of hundreds of millions of dollars. These are concrete examples to show how the previous Liberal Government helped attract beneficial foreign investment to Canada involving new technologies, world competitive products and thousands of jobs.
The FIRA process, rather than discouraging or preventing this kind of investment, helped maximize the benefits flowing from it to Canadians, and the investors in question certainly were not discouraged or turned away by the FIRA process. The present Conservative Government, through recently cutting back and limiting of the Industrial and Regional Development Program of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and now apparently intending to concentrate the Government's investment promotion efforts in little Investment Canada, will be decreasing the likelihood of getting more of these kinds of good deals for Canada and for Canadian workers.
Also, if this Bill passes, the Government will no longer be able to review any new investment projects proposed by a company not yet established here or by one established here if the proposal is totally unrelated to what that company is already doing, regardless of the size of the project. This means the Government will not be able to negotiate to seek binding commitments from the investor to maximize the benefits to Canada in areas of jobs, research and development and world product mandates as a condition of allowing the transaction to proceed. In other words, the bargaining power which helped the Government to confirm that there were realistically defined maximum benefits for Canadian workers and the Canadian economy in projects like AMC in Brampton and MBB-Fleet in Fort Erie or Bell Helicopter near Montreal will no longer be there.
As well, if this Bill passes, no direct takeover of a firm in Canada worth less than $5 million and no indirect takeover where control of the parent changes abroad worth less than $50 million will be subject to review by the Government. The door will be open for firms below these thresholds to be taken over and closed down and the products they make exported into Canada by the new parent firms from abroad with jobs being lost to Canada.
If the Bill passes, in addition to the risk of this very difficult kind of situation, the door is open for firms below these thresholds to be taken over and, if not closed down, then turned largely into warehousing operations with the production and technology they have developed transferred abroad. The Government will not be able to do anything to protect Canadian jobs and Canadian technology. As well, the Government will not be able to negotiate and get commitments not simply

December 17, 1984
Investment Canada Act
to preserve but also to confirm additional jobs and other economic benefits if takeovers are below these new thresholds.
The Minister spoke about not wanting to deal with applications to set up peanut stands. If I can mix a metaphor, that is a very big red herring. In many sectors and especially those in the high technology areas, firms are generally small, especially in the beginning stages. As organizations like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business always remind us, Canada's small businesses, generally Canadian-controlled, are a major potential source of new jobs and innovation. The Conservative Government, in pushing for the adoption of Bill C-15, is ready to see all this lost to Canada. Also, many firms below these thresholds may be small but they are major employers and are very big in the economies of the communities in which they are located. This point has also escaped the Conservative sellout artists.
Of course, every government organization and every government program which has been in existence for a number of years has room for updating and improvement. This includes FIRA. As Minister, I made changes in the administrative side of FIRA which did not require legislation to achieve. These changes were made to simplify, smooth out and greatly speed up that process. It is strange that the Conservatives, in developing this Bill, left intact one of the major points of concern both for business and the general public regarding the existing Foreign Investment Review Act. I am talking about the high degree of confidentiality which the law requires of all FIRA operations. Among other things, this confidentiality prevents the Government, except in very general terms in FIRA reports, from setting out the facts on the thousands of additional jobs, research and development and exports which resulted from the application of the FIRA process.
As well, it is strange, in light of the concerns about the so-called arbitrariness of the current FIRA process, which I believe are not justified, that this Bill would make the successor to that process truly arbitrary. It places all powers of decision over the few large takeover cases, which would still be reviewed and could involve the futures of thousands of workers, in the hands of the Minister alone rather than having those decisions be collective decisions of Cabinet.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would say that we do need more investment, both foreign and Canadian but especially Canadian. However, if this Bill is passed, it will not be the way to go about getting it. This Bill, if passed, would weaken the ability of our Government to protect existing Canadian jobs and technology. It will weaken the Government's ability to obtain a realistically defined maximum in terms of more jobs and other economic benefits for Canadians from direct foreign investment.
This Bill should be looked at along with the harm to our cultural identity which will likely be caused by the cuts to the CBC budget, the Prime Minister's speech in New York confirming his desire to have even more of our economy sold off abroad, as well as the Government's seeming willingness to
undermine our political and economic sovereignty and prospects for growth through pushing for complete continental free trade. All this forms a disturbing pattern. It is one that should greatly alarm Canadians. Over-all, the Bill is deeply flawed. It requires a major study by the House as well as by Canadians. It does not deserve the support of the House. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault):
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-15, An Act respecting investment in Canada, be not now read a
second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Hon. Members have heard the amendment of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). Debate is now on the amendment. Are there questions or comments?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the opposition House Leader, who is a former Minister, had an opportunity to confer with the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) with respect to his attitude toward the Bill. When the Bill was before the House the other day, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides indicated that he would not support it because it did not go far enough. He said that it was a Bill which would control foreign investment. I was wondering if that is the opinion of the Hon. Member for Windsor West and, if so, why would he object to a Bill which significantly controls foreign investment? The Bill would control over 80 per cent of anticipated foreign investment. Why would he object to the Bill when he knows, as a former cabinet Minister, that his Cabinet gave tremendous consideration to one foreign investment proposition after another? That Cabinet made some 860 determinations a year.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has raised an important point. I think the contradiction is not on our side; it is on his side. If we listened to the rhetoric of the principal spokespersons for the Conservative Party regarding the FIRA process and how difficult and harmful it has been, then we could wonder why the Government has not introduced a Bill which would completely remove that process instead of leaving a tiny remnant for the delectation of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens).
There is a contradiction inherent in the Conservative position. If one takes its point of view literally, it should not have left a review process of any kind in the hands of the Minister. Yet the Government left a review process. That means it must admit that the problems that both I and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) I have outlined in our speeches are real. Rather than the Conservatives facing up to those problems, they will make it more difficult for the Government, on behalf of the Canadian people, to deal with them in a constructive and beneficial manner. The Government may say that it will review a limited number of large cases, but the sensitivity, for the future of Canadian communities, in many ways will arise from what will happen in the small cases, particularly in high-tech areas.
December 17, 1984

I would like to respond to the last point made by the Hon. Member which dealt with the time that was taken by Cabinet on FIRA cases. The responsible Minister indicated that 20 per cent of cabinet agendas were filled with FIRA cases. That may have well been correct. However, I would like to tell the Hon. Member-and I believe that I can say this without breaching the concept of confidentiality which is so important to his Prime Minister-that consideration of FIRA cases did not take 20 per cent of cabinet time. There was a process for the quick handling of cases. There was an assurance for full interdepartmental consultation, an assurance for full consideration of regional effects and of a whole range of policy concerns. That will be missing totally in this misguided and truncated Bill C-15. That is why I say that we, on behalf of the Canadian people, must oppose the Bill.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I feel a certain amount of sympathy for the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). He introduced FIRA shortly after his election four years ago and it has gone down the drain. In the last year of FIRA his Government allowed 96 per cent of the takeovers. What is the difference between his position of the last four years and that of the present Government? I cannot see much difference.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, there is a world of difference. I am sorry to say that it is the usual NDP tunnel vision which prevents it from seeing the difference.
First, we oppose changing the present process so that direct takeovers under $5 million in value would be totally exempt. We oppose changing the present law so that indirect takeovers below the $50 million threshold would be totally exempt. We oppose excluding all new transactions from the FIRA process. We oppose leaving the sole authority for the truncated remnant of a review process totally in the hands of the Minister. I could go on, but I think I have given enough examples of the very substantial difference between our view and that of the Conservative Government.
Second, we have a straightforward point of view, which the Conservatives do not. We believe there are problems as well as benefits connected with a high level of foreign control, and we want to maximize the benefit to the extent that we require foreign capital and minimize the costs, while at the same time we do something substantial and constructive to encourage Canadian investment. That is totally missing from the misguided Bill C-15. As I said in my speech, if there was a high level of approval of applications under FIRA by the last Government-and there was-it meant that investors were willing to structure their deals to meet the test of significant benefit. The law was not an impediment. The Government and its officials did their duty and found that the test of significant benefit was met in a way which brought a good deal for the investor and, more important, a good deal for Canadians, especially Canadian workers.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make three quick points. One, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) mentioned foreign control. We are not giving foreigners con-
Investment Canada Act
trol. They will be working under our laws. They will hire our people and they will pay taxes in Canada. We are not giving them control.
I could give the Hon. Member an example. When we requested money in Alberta to develop Canada's oil and gas industry-and if that had not happened we would not have the industry which we have today-eastern Canada would not provide a cent. England would not provide a cent. But when we went to the United States the Americans came in with money and drilled about 200 dry holes. It cost the U.S. investors millions of dollars before they struck oil. We did not sell out to the Americans. They invested their money under our laws and our rules. That is what this Government plans to do.
Second, the Hon. Member mentioned that Canada would lose its identity. We are not losing any identity. We are Canadians and we will remain Canadians. Just because we accept foreign money to help develop our resources does not mean that we are losing our identity. We will keep our sovereignty and our identity. They use their money to hire Canadians. We get taxes from them and the country becomes more buoyant. That is the difference in our proposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Windsor West-


Gordon Edward Taylor: My third point-


Sheila Maureen Copps: He's not a member of the Reagan administration-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order please. If the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has a third point, will he please make it.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned that during the regime of the Liberals, millions of dollars came into the country and thousands of jobs were created. Why did $9 billion leave the country? Why are their 1.5 million people unemployed? Where are those millions? Where are those jobs?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, even though my hon. friend has spoken in a way which sheds more heat than light on the whole issue, he has raised some points which I believe will help clarify the debate. The fact is that there have been net inflows during this whole period of foreign investment. The outflows largely result from the coming into Canadian hands of major assets, Canadian ownership of major assets, particularly in the oil and gas industry, about which the Hon. Member is talking. I do not know why he would want to oppose that. If we buy something from people in another country, then, obviously, we have to pay them for it. I hope the Hon. Member is not opposing that and calling for confiscation of those assets, because, in that case, I would certainly oppose his point of view.
Second, the Hon. Member is right when he says that foreign investors have to be here under our laws. Someone asked, I

December 17, 1984
Investment Canada Act
believe the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), if not the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), what is going to stop someone from taking over a Canadian firm and closing it down so that he would not have to face competition from that firm, or so that he could export from a foreign base. I believe the answer was that he would act honourably, but in any event, he would be subject to our laws. That, Mr. Speaker, is just the point. We will not have the laws we have now to ensure-


Mr. Mayer:: Don't be silly. No one is going to buy something and close it down.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: What we want is to have constructive conduct both for the investor and for Canada.
Third, when 1 talked about the CBC-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The time for questions and comments is now terminated.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the next speaker, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand)-the Constitution-(a) Unilingual Quebec traffic ticket appeal, (b) Federal Government's factum; the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Farm Credit Corporation-(a) Moratorium on farm foreclosures, (b) Proposed United States program; and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-(a) Effect of budgetary cut-backs on writers, (b) Effect on incomes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak this afternoon to the Bill before the House, an Act respecting investment in Canada. I have been in the field of public economic development policy for five years, and during that time 1 had occasion to examine the work done by the Foreign Investment Review Agency. My conclusion was that dogmatic and ideological considerations have no place in economic development.
Mr. Speaker, representations made by the Opposition, both by the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, have, until now, been highly emotional, ideological and dogmatic. We have seen the damage done by the National Energy Program because it was based mainly on dogmatic considerations. The program was created out of a desire for centralizing control over the oil industry at the federal level, mainly in order to restain the producing provinces which were showing too much independence to the federal, then Liberal, Government's taste.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen the damage done by the 1980 MacEachen budget, which was also based on dogmatic concepts and the desire to weaken the private sector and those people who, according to the Liberal Administration, appeared to favour business methods and development and growth priorities that differred from those sanctioned by the Government at the time. Because Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction towards removing the impact of dogmatism, I am supporting this Bill and I would like to see it referred without delay to the appropriate committee of the House, for thorough analysis in a constructive and a responsible manner, and subsequent amendments as appropriate.
When considering ways of promoting economic development, Mr. Speaker, we should simply ask ourselves whether a given method or measure or the withdrawal of a measure will or will not promote development. That is the question we must ask. Today, environmental protection and employment are some of the aspects that must be considered as a matter of course. We are not talking about development at any cost, on the contrary.
The Bill now before the House recognizes that investment is the linchpin of economic growth and job creation and the key to technological development. That is why we make the assumption that investment in Canada, either by Canadians or non-Canadians, is likely to benefit this country.
The Bill provides for the establishment of a new agency, to be called Investment Canada. It also provides for the review of significant investments by non-Canadians to ensure that the assumption that the investment will benefit Canada is justified. Non-Canadian investors intending to make minor acquisitions or create new businesses need merely notify the agency of their intentions.
This legislation is therefore not sounding the death knell of Canadian ownership or of our pride in our Canadian businesses. It is simply a new Bill that takes a more positive and less dogmatic approach than the legislation it is going to replace.
Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the existing FIRA had approved more than 90 per cent of applications for acquisitions in this
December 17, 1984

country, so the first question that comes to mind is whether the huge amounts budgeted for that exercise have been well spent or even well allocated. Our economy and our country have had other priorities, and I am wondering whether such funds allocated for an exercise which did not seem to be all that essential were indeed wisely allocated, particularly if we consider that, since the advent of FIRA, Canadian ownership has increased regularly despite rising direct foreign investment in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, 1 have the CALURA report which contains a table on percentages of foreign controlled non-financial industries in Canada for 1971, 1976 and 1981. As an example, I will refer to a few sectors only. In agriculture, foreign ownership declined by 9 per cent, 32 per cent in mining, 17 per cent in foodstuffs, 28 per cent in primary processing of metals. Overall, foreign ownership in those sectors decreased by 11 per cent, notwithstanding the fact that FIRA approved more than 90 per cent of foreign applications for acquisitions.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to stress that, in the same report, indirect investment is said to have gone up accordingly. That is another aspect of the whole question of foreign investment which I want to discuss. Investments in the form of direct funding are better than investments in the form of debts, because they create jobs and are profitable to the investor and the host country. The investor cannot make profits and declare dividends unless he succeeds.
As stated in a Conference Board of Canada report:
In the 19th century foreign investors favoured this country by buying the bonds of its municipalities and railroads. In the early years of this century such portfolio investment was rapidly superseded by foreign direct investment. The economic significance of this distinction is that direct investment typically involves the transfer form the parent to the affiliate of an intangible and proprietary asset such as technology, managerial control, a unique or differentiated product, or a market position. Alternatively, direct investment may involve backwards integration to ensure security of supply for raw materials used in the parent company's production process. The circumstances surrounding direct investment make it desirable from the investor's point of view for the parent to exercise a managerial control that is not possible with portfolio investment in order to protect its unique and non-transferable assets or market position.

Mr. Speaker, this means that direct investments bring us jobs and profitable businesses. On the other hand, indebtedness creates a return for the foreign creditor while the country in debt has no employment, no productivity or return on its investment. The country with borrowed rather than directly invested capital will find itself with growing debt which affects
Investment Canada Act
inflation and domestic interest rates and undermines its development opportunities.
Indeed, it is because Canada has irresponsibly accumulated debts that we find ourselves in an economic deadend today. Because of that, we found ourselves compelled to agree to policies we find repugnant, such as the 1 per cent increase in sales tax which was advocated by the previous Liberal Government, and the rate increase for various services provided by the Government, and also to impose cut-backs in certain areas. While it is true that most of these cut-backs are related to administrative costs, we hate having to implement them because of the current unemployment problem.
Mr. Speaker, all Hon. Members are aware that an individual can give the appearance of economic stability, affluence and ownership. He can do so by driving a leased car, by living in a house with a 90 per cent mortgage and by buying his clothes with credit cards. However, they also know that, when his income is reduced and he can no longer meet his payments, he is faced with disaster. He may feel that he owns all this, but it is only an illusion of ownership.
Therefore, I believe that as a country under previous governments, we have, in a similar way, increased our indebtedness as opposed to acquiring the kind of direct capital investment that creates jobs and gives us the flexibility required to assume our responsibilities as a just society anxious to look after those who have the direst needs.
Over the last decade, Mr. Speaker, Canada has been driving a rented Buick. It has been entertaining friends at the golf club using a Visa credit card. The most recent bill handed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) added up to at least a $34 billion deficit and an indebtedness of over $150 billion.
It is time we destroy some of those credit cards, Mr. Speaker. Not all of them, of course, because credit is also a tool for economic growth, but some of them.
Moreover, I also believe it is high time we asked ourselves whether we are not entertaining the illusion of ownership, whether our debt is not the one most important amount or property we wholly own.
Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that theorists have no place in the area of development. I would like to refer to that study by the Conference Board which commented on the establishment of the screening agency along the lines of the "Gray" report's recommendation.
I am sorry that the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) has left the House, because I think he would be interested in this comment.
The Conference Board stated in its report:

Public and political reaction to the Gray report was in large measure dictated by the foreign investment issue's high public profile and the precarious political balance after the 1972 federal election when I believe the Liberal administration had

December 17, 1984
Investment Canada Act
a minority. The key factor in the situation was the New Democratic Party's espousal of some form of foreign investment screening. Finding itself pressured by the Waffle group, a radical fragment of its Party, the NDP in turn exploited its position as the Party holding the balance of power to exert pressure on the ruling Liberals. In this atmosphere, the Gray report rapidly became a cause celebre.

A celebrated law case. And the report goes on to state that- [English]
There are a number of academics, politicians and business leaders who are sympathetic to the notion of abolishing FIRA. It is difficult, however, to assess whether these forces opposing FIRA are capable of overcoming the political interests which view FIRA as an important electoral and policy symbol. It goes on to say that the suggestion to permit new investments to enter Canada without being subjected to FIRA would certainly alleviate FIRA's caseload and therefore speed up the process. New business applications comprise about one half of the total applications FIRA receives. This suggests that on close scrutiny FIRA's decision on new acquisitions is based on the fact that it does not believe that these bring significant benefit to Canada. In addition, some domestic companies may not welcome the idea of an open door policy regarding new investment since FIRA provides these companies with an element of protection from foreign competitors. I know, Mr. Speaker, that this is an unhealthy sign for a trading nation such as we are, one which needs strong industry and must cease to take refuge behind non-tariff barriers.
As Hon. Members know, there is both fear of growing protectionism in our major commercial trading partners and a growing need to free trade between nations in order to increase employment growth in various countries, including ours. Canada should be working toward strengthening its industrial sectors to meet competition at home and to go out and secure other markets outside. Therefore, we must strike a balance between leaving our weaker sectors exposed to competition and making every effort to seek new markets, which will only be open to us if we are ready to be open to them. Countries which need to sell to us their specialties would not look kindly on our closing our markets to them or their investments. The whole question of world economic stability and debt service in developing countries is also tied to our ability to trade the world over. This is why-


Mr. Benjamin:: Who wrote that?


Claudy Mailly: I did. This is why I recommend to this House that the Bill should be sent immediately to the pertinent standing committee of the House so it can be studied seriously to ensure that it is all we want it to be. We also want it to ensure that the Minister's responsibilities for the enactment of Investment Canada are also all that they should be.
[ Translation]
-because we are not dealing any death blow to the principle of essential screening nor to the protection of Canadian ownership with this legislation, Mr. Speaker. On the contrary, we are introducing a positive investment dimension, combined with a realistic protection of our best Canadian interests.
I note in the Bill, Mr. Speaker, that the responsibilities of the Minister and of the agency are to encourage business investment by such means and in such manner as they deem appropriate, assist Canadian businesses to exploit opportunities for investment and technological investment.
I found out in the Conference Board report I was referring to that France has taken such an open approach. Although France has a Socialist Government, that Government is sufficiently concerned with the country's development to realize it must provide other nations and private enterprise with incentives to come in and invest. Therefore, in their screening provisions, they have that positive aspect we want somehow to copy here, that is to help businesses acknowledge investments here while being very careful to protect Canadian ownership and interests.
Its responsibilities also include making studies of investment both at the national and international level. I noticed that in the definition given of France's screening agency, there was the same attitude, namely to provide an investment information service to promote economic growth, to help develop economic and industrial policies that foster investment and to ensure that investment notification and review is done in accordance with the legislation. I see here some very positive aspects. I see here some serious and responsible interventions on the part of the Minister and his agency in the area of investment in Canada. I do not see what we have been hearing during the last few days, which was that our interests are being sold down the river and that we have forgotten and neglected our pride in Canadian ownership.
Mr. Speaker, I think this Bill is a valid one which should be given serious consideration in committee, with no thought of partisanship, keeping in mind what binds us together which is our country's interests, the interests of today's youth who are unemployed and also the interests of future generations. In considering this legislation, we should make this the first Bill where Parliament has been able to agree that the interests of young Canadians, of the elderly who need funds for their pension plans, of women who need a sound economy to attain equality, are of primary importance. In committee, Mr. Speaker, we ought to consider this Bill carefully and make it one of which we can all be proud, whatever our political affiliation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a few questions, if I may. First of all, I would like to say I found the Hon. Member's speech very interesting, and that it is indeed important to consider this concept in a non-partisan way. However, I think there are a number of very important factors the Hon. Member should not forget.
December 17, 1984

First: Why did the Government decide to do away with the review process for new investment? Is it not important for small Canadian businesses to look at these small investments?
Second, there is the matter of-
I switch to English here because my grasp in French of some of the technicalities such as an indirect takeover is simply not sufficient to permit me to proceed in French. How does an indirect takeover, which this Bill now permits, help us to achieve the improvements in employment which I think the Member is quite sincerely attempting to search for? [Translation]
It is important the Hon. Member should consider what is happening in France, because in France, the Government decided that it was important to have foreign investment in that country. To achieve this, however, it is unnecessary to eliminate all investment regulations, because, as far as I know, if a foreign corporation wants to set up a factory in France, it must first have the Government's permission. And they did not change the regulations to change all that.

In short, Mr. Speaker, I think that we must seriously consider this in a careful and conscientious way. I agree with the Member that it is important to do so in committee. To do that it is important that the matter of the takeover limit for small investments coming into the country, the matter of whether we will be able to have some review of new investments coming in, and the matter of the size of the indirect takeovers will have to be open to question. I wonder, as a fellow member of that committee-

-whether the Hon. Member can say whether it is true that all Progressive Conservative Members want to look at these things with an-

-an open mind, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) says. Can we expect that?
[ Translation]


Claudy Mailly: 1 want to thank my colleague for asking these questions.
In reply to the first one dealing with the limits set to exonerate acquisitions under $5 million, I believe that this should in fact be discussed in committee to determine whether this amount is realistic and will help protect small businesses. According to available data and in view of the fact that the number of acquisitions approved by the former screening agency did not cause any harm to small businesses, the amount of $5 million chosen by the Minister seemed appropriate to solve the problem of how not to interfere with investment favourable to Canada while protecting small businesses which may be weaker than others. However, this is a very serious
Investment Canada Act
subject which should be reviewed in committee, and this is why I would like us to reach this stage as soon as possible instead of spending many hours in the House letting off steam, which I do not consider particularly constructive.
As for the second question of why a change should be made at this point, it is because, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, over 90 per cent of the applications submitted were approved by the screening agency, which might suggest that the rules were not realistic. Otherwise, perhaps half of the applications or even more would have been turned down. In fact, nearly all the applications were approved in spite of the fact that they were screened at a cost, I believe, of $6,000 each. This is why a change is needed and it is partly motivated by the wish to reduce expenses and to determine whether existing agencies truly play an essential role, especially when they are costly to run, and whether we could not obtain the same results at a lesser cost. This is one aspect of the matter.
Another aspect has to do with indirect transfers between non-Canadians. If a business was already controlled by foreign interests and everything was going well, we have to ask ourselves this question: Does the state have any business interfering in an exchange between two individuals or moral persons for reasons which are mostly ideological? However, this is another issue that my hon. colleague will certainly want to discuss in committee.
As for the last question asked by the Hon. Member, or rather his comment on the situation in France, I believe that he will agree that France has recently taken a new direction, because earlier, the tendency was mostly to direct the economy in a traditional manner with traditional socialistic methods.
But people realized that France does not exist in a vacuum, that she lives in a world where trade reaches beyond frontiers, otherwise there cannot be economic growth in the country.
Canada is in the same situation, perhaps more so for Canada because we do not have the Common Market which does give some protection to France. I therefore think that France is leaning much more on our side than the Hon. Member would care to admit, but I have the impression that we are headed in the right direction and that other countries, for which it is not a traditional approach, seem to be doing the same thing.
But again those are aspects which will be debated in committee, I hope.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think we would fully support this Bill if it were renamed "Abandon Canada" because, to be frank, that is exactly what is happening with this piece of legislation as it is.
I have only two small questions to ask the Hon. Member.

December 17, 1984
Investment Canada Act

Yes, I would support it if you renamed the legislation "Abandon Canada".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: If you renamed the legislation "Abandon Canada"-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has the floor.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It would certainly reflect the context of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have two short questions. First, what guarantees will be provided by the legislation once it is enacted? What guarantees will be provided for instance for the Sainte-Therese workers, who are now faced with the situation that the American General Motors Corporation has decided not to proceed with a $1 billion investment in Canada, but rather to redirect it to the United States? What guarantees will be provided for the Quebec workers so that a corporation such as General Motors, which has already made the best of the Auto Pact.. . what guarantees will be provided not only for existing jobs but for future investments?
Because workers, especially automobile workers, really fear that now the United States and the American automobile manufacturers will attempt to invest in the United States because we have tried to organize labour unions in Canada. What guarantees will your Government allow to ensure that the billions of dollars in investments such as we once had in Sainte-Therese, Quebec, will not be called off by American corporations who think only in terms of their own profits in the United States without concern for the interests of Canadian workers?
My second question is this:

What kind of guarantee? The Government has already put on the chopping block companies like Canadair and deHavilland.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Nobody will buy them anyway.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would like to know, as a result of this legislation, what kind of job guarantees this Government would give to the workers of companies like deHavilland if a foreign purchaser were to be found. What job guarantees is this Government prepared to give to deHavilland, and specifically what changes is this Government prepared to make to the auto pact to ensure that the kind of investment cancelled in Sainte-Therese-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The time for questions and comments has expired. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) will have to answer the question at another time or meet the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) later. Questions and comments are now terminated.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) raises some interesting questions. Would the House give unanimous consent to having those questions answered?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for Gatineau to answer the questions of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Perhaps I can dwell for a few moments, until five o'clock on a section of this Bill that has been overlooked so far. What is the primary reason, as I see it, for the six-month hoist? Why should this Bill not be allowed to proceed unless certain actions are taken by the Government of Canada? Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker. The very Minister who introduced this Bill did so to promote economic development in Canada and to try to create an atmosphere for investment, not only, as the Bill says, for foreign countries through FIRA, but for ordinary Canadians and Canadian investment. But that very Minister had to cut $175 million from the industrial and regional development program in his Department, what he calls adjustments to regulations. This program provides the very industrial incentives that businessmen need when they want to develop in high unemployment areas of Canada. I am talking primarily about a province like Newfoundland. That very Minister, Mr. Speaker, also approved reductions in what he called other Drie industrial incentive programs to the tune of $25 million for a total of $200 million.
Prior to about two years ago we always had the DREE program in the high unemployment areas. That program guaranteed 25 per cent of the capital costs. Along came the departmental reorganization into DRIE. All of a sudden, costs amounted to 50 per cent to 60 per cent overhead plus 65 per cent of the cost of a study. Now we see there is drastic reduction in the very Department of the Minister who brings in a Bill and says, "We want to encourage investment in Canada by foreigners and by Canadians". Then there was the industrial training program with its cuts. In other words you have a businessman wanting to set up in a high unemployment area of Canada. You could always use what was called on-the-job training. Cuts were announced by the Government amounting to $40 million.
First, if you want to set up, you cannot. That has been cut. If you want to train people, you cannot. That has been cut. The Government was not content with that. It looked at modes
December 17, 1984

of transportation from high unemployment areas. The Government said, "Let us take a crack at that". What about transportation by air? An investor says, "I want to move certain commodities by air". The Government then announces that there will be an air cargo tax coming into effect in 1987. What if you want to go by rail, or by land? We have fare increases, and operating costs. There was a cut of $93 million from VIA rail. What if you want to go by ocean, Mr. Speaker? Surely the ocean method is going to be overlooked by this Government. Not so. Along came the increases in CN Marine and the coastal boat service of Newfoundland. If that were not enough, to the company that wants to export to foreign nations, there were cuts in various departments, even to the extent of cutting out completely the Canadian commercial corporations. There actually was a corporation that dealt in negotiations between governments for the exports of commodities from Canada.
That is why the Liberal Party today introduced a six-month hoist. On the one hand the Government is saying this, and it is saying that it is in favour of investment in Canada by Canadians and by foreign countries. On the other hand, however, this Government turns around and cuts and cuts and cuts the very areas that influence investment. It makes cuts in the very areas in which people would need assistance if they were going to set up in high unemployment areas, or in any part of Canada for that matter. It is a poor reflection upon the Government of Canada.
I see my time has run out, but I think I have made my point.
I think I can continue with my additional 15 minutes when the Bill is returned to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, I think you can.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this point to announce the almost certain but still tentative business for tomorrow. Until further notice, as we are in the process of negotiating with the opposition Parties about making progress, it would be my intention to call Bill C-12 tomorrow morning, followed by the Bill relating to Investment Canada once we have concluded deliberations on Bill C-12 or, as the House will see tomorrow morning, the final product of Bill C-12 after unanimous consent.
That is my present intention for tomorrow. It is subject to change if circumstances or priorities change or if a consensus is arrived at. We look forward to making progress.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, though many in the House might not understand the ramblings of the Government House Leader, they are perfectly clear to me. It is obvious that being the Government House Leader is indeed a chore which only this particular Member could undertake with any degree of proficiency at the moment.
Official Languages Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. 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

["Order. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all orders and items preceding item No. 155 stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Stand.



Jean-Robert Gauthier: that Bill C-203, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (supremacy of the Act) and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages Policy and Programs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, for a number of years I have been submitting Private Member's Bills to this House, aimed at correcting certain discrepancies in the Official Languages Act, and I must say it is a source of great satisfaction to me that every time in the past eight or nine years that I presented a Bill, there was a good debate in the House and the Bill was given serious consideration by the Committee on Official Languages. Moreover, suggestions made in these Bills were adopted both by the Committee and the Government.
Today's legislation, Bill C-203, is therefore one more in a series of Private Members' Bills presented by me in the House, and I may remind Hon. Members that the last time the matter was discussed in 1980, the Bill or Bills were referred to the Special Joint Committee on Official Languages for study and consideration, resulting in very substantial amendments both to the Criminal Code and to the Official Languages Act.
To give Hon. Members some historical background, in 1978, Bill C-210 which I presented in the House was aimed at correcting certain discrepancies in the Revised Statutes of Canada of 1970 and deleted certain references to bilingual districts, which, in any case, were never established. Hon. Members will recall that at each census, a committee was to be formed to examine the establishment of bilingual districts.
1310

December 17, 1984
Official Languages Act
These bilingual districts were examined by two commissions, after the 1971 and 1981 census, and Parliament never followed up their recommendations. When the Government fails to follow the recommendations made by a committee established under an Act of Parliament, one would think the legislation was not terribly important and that anomalies such as bilingual districts, for instance, should be deleted from our statutes.
The same Bill C-210, in 1978, gave the defendant the right to be heard and judged by a court or a judge speaking the language of the defendant, and the Bill also amended certain Acts including the Railway Act, the Winding-up Act, the Bank Act and a number of other statutes in order to remove certain discrepancies from the Statutes. I would like to give one example which I find rather obvious, and that is the Railway Act.
The Railway Act provides that, in Quebec, the station agent shall write, with white chalk on a blackboard, the arrival and departure of trains as well as the time of overdue trains. The Act states clearly that this is to be done in French and English in Quebec, whereas it is to be done in English in the other provinces. Well, we all know that today that measure does not apply only in Quebec, thanks to the Official Languages Act. I have colleagues from Ontario, western and eastern Canada- and yourself, Mr. Speaker-who would readily acknowledge that nowadays the proper thing to do for a national carrier is to abide by the Official Languages Act and that it is irregular to have in our statute books a provision under which that procedure applies only in Quebec. The same thing applies to banks, the same thing applies to liquidations: only in Quebec must it be done in French and English, which leads one to believe that the rest of Canada is unilingual and anglophone.
In any case, here I am again with Bill C-203, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act, and I move that it be read the second time and referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages Policy and Programs. Mr. Speaker, Bill C-203 is similar to others like C-214 and C-210 which I introduced in Parliament in May 1980 and whose general intent was to be given approval by the Special Joint Committee on Official Languages. Indeed, in its fourth and fifth reports, the committee refers to the recommendations contained in Bill C-214.
Bill C-203 is based primarily on considerations of a legal nature, but also on considerations of a political nature, in the non-partisan sense of the word. If I may sum up those two aspects in a single statement, I would say that this Parliament must consolidate one of the main foundations of our federal system, the principle of linguistic equality, by deleting from our statutes any ambiguity concerning the importance and supremacy of the Official Languages Act which, coupled with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, happens to be the legal foundations of that linguistic equality. In short, the purpose of this Bill is to assert the political will of this Parliament with respect to the supremacy of the Official Languages Act.
Bill C-203, about which this Parliament is called upon to make a decision, is aimed at asserting the primacy of Official
Languages Act Section 2 over any other legislative and regulatory provision of the Parliament and the Government of Canada. Secondarily, it also stipulates that banks and railway companies shall publish, in Canada's both official languages, certain notices and other documents intended for the public. The Acts to be amended now prescribe that only in the Province of Quebec shall they publish certain notices and documents in French and English.
Section 2 of the Official Languages Act passed in 1969 says the following:
The English and French languages are the official languages of Canada for all purposes of the Parliament and Government of Canada, and possess and enjoy equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all the institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada.
It was therefore 15 years ago that this Parliament decided to legislate to entrench the principle of linguistic equality in the Canadian Federation. This was an important decision, a symbol of the progress made at the time. However, legally, the Official Languages Act does not necessarily have supremacy over other pieces of legislation passed by this Parliament. However, in our legal system, depending on how the general principles of interpretation of our laws are applied, Section 2 of the Official Languages Act might not have precedence over another legislative provision where there is a conflict. The courts have even recognized that a simple regulation may occasionally, in case of conflict, have supremacy over Section 2 of the Official Languages Act.
Mr. Speaker, this is basically the situation which Bill C-203 wants to change. From now on, if the Bill is passed, in case of a conflict between Section 2 of the Official Languages Act and another federal Act or Regulation, Section 2 would have precedence. I invite the Hon. Members to read the proceedings of the Committee on Official Languages, which was first a Special Joint Committee and is now a Standing Committee, on this issue to learn about the full impact of this Bill.
This Parliament would clearly establish that, as a first step, the courts would attempt to see whether it is possible to interpret federal Acts and Regulations in such a way that they would not cancel, restrict or violate the rule stated in Section 2. If this proves impossible, they would have to give precedence to Section 2, and any other legislative or regulatory provision in conflict with it could be declared nul and void. However, Bill C-203 leaves Parliament free to go against Section 2 of the Official Languages Act by an express statement to this purpose. Thus by giving Parliament the right to go against Section 2 Parliament would be fully empowered to make the political decisions it deems appropriate to ensure linguistic equality in federal institutions. Thus, while some progress will be made as far as linguistic equality is concerned, exceptions to this principle will still be possible.
Once more, Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues in this House to examine the submissions made to the Committee in this regard. For instance, there was the submission made by Professor Gerald Beaudoin, who told us clearly and precisely that, in fact, the purpose of such a clause was to give to the
December 17, 1984

Official Languages Act supremacy over any other piece of legislation so that it would have the status of a linguistic charter.
If the Official Languages Act contains a provision which allows Parliament to make exceptions, this also provides some flexibility and thus establishes a linguistic charter, which is essential in my opinion.
The principle contained in Bill C-203 has already been approved by the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Official Languages. Hon. Members will recall that this Committee was asked to examine Bill C-214 introduced during the previous Parliament, whose purpose was the same as that of the bill now before us. It made a recommendation to that effect, even though the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines this in almost similar terms, in its Section 16 that is well known to us all. It is the same wording, the same principle. The Official Languages act, as pointed out by a witness in Committee, and I quote:
-can cover fields that are not directly provided for in Section 16 of the Charter of Rights.
To illustrate, Mr. Speaker, let me add that the coming into force in 1982 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has not done away with the relevancy of the Canadian Bill of Rights. On the contrary, it will be remembered that the Canadian Bill of Rights Act was enacted in 1960 and that we also passed in 1977 the Canadian Human Rights Act.
That has not changed anything, those Acts are still in the books and they do not conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Official Languages Act, especially Section 2, therefore remains a necessary element to the promotion of linguistic equality in federal institutions in this country. Bill C-203 proposes to give precedence to that principle, while providing Parliament with a notwithstanding clause. Briefly, such is the extent of the measure submitted to this House.
In a non-partisan spirit, Mr. Speaker, let us now look at the political aspect.
In the Throne Speech, the Government stated on November 5, 1984, and I quote:
My government is committed to ensuring that the equality of the two official languages-so vital to our national character and identity-is respected in fact as it is in law. My Ministers acknowledge the need for ongoing improvements and for vigilance in this indispensable area of our national life.
This is a goal I endorse wholeheartedly, Mr. Speaker, but we are forced to conclude that the Government is not very specific with respect to its legislative intentions. It is my view that if this Parliament were to give all the attention needed to Bill C-203 1 am introducing today, a major step would be made in respect of the linguistic reform started in 1969.
Since 1969, the linguistic reform has made undeniable progress. Within the three political parties in this House, there is at the official level at least a wide consensus on the principle of linguistic equality and its implementation. As evidence you have the two resolutions passed by this House during the previous Parliament at the time of the linguistic crisis in
Official Languages Act
Manitoba and the three-party consensus which marked the proceedings in the Special Joint Committee on Official Languages, to which 1 referred earlier and of which 1 was a co-chairman.
You will also remember, Mr. Speaker, the wide consensus which prevailed when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted, which as we know included important linguistic provisions. The fact remains, however, that the Official Languages Act is somewhat outdated. In many respects, it does not reflect the progress made in the linguistic reform process it had launched and which, in the view of some people, it is not hindering. I am thinking especially of the whole question of language in the work place within the Public Service of Canada. Linguistic equality having been enshrined at the highest level in the Constitutional Act of 1982, consistency now requires that we do more, that we give the Official Languages Act the status it deserves. In so doing, this Parliament will clearly indicate to the Canadian people its determination to actualize the principle of linguistic equality.
Language tensions are still a political fact of life in Canada, Mr. Speaker. Recent events in New Brunswick and Manitoba show that the road to linguistic equality is not an easy one. French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians need reassurance from the federal legislators that, despite the pitfalls, there is unswerving determination at the national level to attain linguistic equality. This is the least we can do, Mr. Speaker, and I conclude my remarks on Bill C-203 by expressing the hope that I will get the support of Hon. Members, in order that the motion on this legislation may carry today.
In past years, Mr. Speaker, one or our colleagues would suggest that the Bill be deferred to a committee for consideration. I think that such an issue could be covered in a resolution by a member of this House. I would greatly appreciate it if this very important and extremely relevant question could be thoroughly dealt with by the joint Committees on Official Languages Policy and Programs chaired by a government member. I think that the committee should meet and thoroughly examine the proposal so that one day true linguistic equality will be achieved in this country.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to warn the House that I will make my first comments in French.

I thought it was only fair to warn you, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to put into perspective the bill under consideration. It contains an amendment to the legislation on official languages that would give it precedence over all other federal laws, orders, rules and regulations, past as well as present.
I am sure that Hon. Members understand the vital importance of that proposal which has numerous present and future consequences. It is therefore crucial that the underlying princi-

December 17, 1984
Official Languages Act
pie of the bill be considered in the light of existing legislation, of events which occurred during the past four years and of its impact on our future.

Over the past four years, we have listened with considerable admiration for the persistence and the single-minded dedication with which the Hon. Member has introduced proposals to amend the Official Languages Act.
I do not know how it is done in Queen's Park, Mr. Speaker, but in the House of Commons, one does not pass between the Chair and the Member who is speaking.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is a point of order. I think we should bring that to the attention of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and of other Hon. Members. One does not pass between the Member who is speaking and the Chair. I would hope that all Hon. Members, and particularly the new Members, would keep that in mind.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it was unintentional.
1 was making reference to the Hon. Member's persistence and dedication to the cause which he espouses. I can say that we have watched this dedication with a great deal of admiration.
In 1980, the Hon. Member sponsored Bill C-214, to which he has referred today, which proposed to amend the Official Languages Act to assert its primacy over other federal legislation. In June 1984, the Hon. Member introduced an identical Bill, Bill C-255, with the addition of the consequential amendments which are now attached to this Bill. However, Bill C-255 died on the Order Paper as a result of the election called by the Hon. Member's Party. Our roles have now changed.
Our Party has an opportunity to deal with a broad spectrum of concerns which affect all Canadians. I can assure the House that it is our intention to fulfil our mandate in a thoughtful and comprehensive manner.
I suggest to the House that we examine what happened to Bill C-214, the Hon. Member's previous effort to which I referred a minute ago. That Bill was referred on second reading to the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Official Languages. This was a committee which included the Hon. Member on its roster. I mention this because the discussions which took place in the House and particularly in the joint committee at that time raised important issues of principle, just as Bill C-203 does at this time. It is my opinion that it is relevant to review some of those discussions as reported in Hansard and in the minutes of the joint committee's proceedings of May 12, 1982.
When the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) spoke on behalf of Bill C-214 in July, 1980, he noted that he was pleased with the progress made in the official languages field since the inception of the Official Languages Act. However, he felt at that time that there were still problems that remained to be solved. He pointed out that the official languages policy had remained consistent over the previous two
years and that this was evidence of a high degree of unanimity among the Parties of the House, despite the changes in Government which had occurred in the interim.
From time to time, the Hon. Members has stressed that for some Members, linguistic equality is one of the main principles of the Canadian federation and one which needed to be recognized in the new Constitution in order to be protected against possible infringement.

As we all know, the equality of both official languages is now entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is part of our new constitution. The Charter has been enthusiastically endorsed by all three parties.
In the past, the core of the argument made by the Hon. Member was that the principle of linguistic equality as set in section 2 of the Act on Official Languages did not take precedence on all other laws and regulations made by Parliament and the government of Canada. Well, such was perhaps the case when the Hon. Member introduced his first bill but that basic principle of linguistic equality is now part of our constitution.

As a fundamental part of our Constitution, it would have primacy over all federal legislation and regulations, I would submit. I suggest with respect that the Hon. Member's argument is lost on that score.
I believe that I am on sound ground when I say that the best guarantee of continuity for the principle of equal status and rights of the official languages is not the embodiment of a primacy statement in the Official Languages Act but, rather, the fact that we have now enshrined it in the Canadian Constitution. At this juncture in our history, we have Sections 16 and 20 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those provisions establish the equality of the status of the official languages of Canada and guarantee equal rights and privileges as to their use in federal institutions.
Section 20 of the Constitution entrenches the right of any member of the public to communicate and receive services in either French or English at the head office of any Department, agency, institution, et cetera, of the federal Government wherever such office is located. Members of the public also have the same right to such services from any other office where there is a significant demand or where the nature of the office makes it reasonable to have bilingual services available. In addition to these fundamental rights, Section 24 of the Charter now permits any member of the public to seek redress in the courts if he or she believes that these rights have been infringed upon. Section 20 of the Charter already places some qualifications on the requisite availability of bilingual communications and services.
The basic criteria to be applied are the provision of such services from head offices and from offices where there is significant demand or where the nature of the office requires a bilingual service. With these criteria in the Charter, it is

* -
December 17, 1984

difficult to understand what the absolute primacy provision of Bill C-203 will add to the linguistic guarantees that already exist with respect to service to the public in Section 20 of the Charter.
I stated earlier in my remarks that it is the Charter of Rights that provides the protection, not the primacy sections of the Official Languages Act or the primacy provision which my hon. friend seeks to insert by way of this Bill. By saying that, I know 1 am impinging upon the Hon. Member's intentions. In the testimony of the Deputy Minister of Justice and the Deputy Attorney General of Canada before the special joint committee they expressed the opinion of the Department of Justice that the principle enunciated in Section 16 of the Charter was indeed binding and obligatory. Moreover, it was pointed out that anyone feeling prejudiced in the application of Section 16 could appeal to the courts for a remedy under Section 24 of the Charter.
I would suggest that the issue of whether or not Section 2 of the Official Languages Act is supreme over other provisions of any legislation passed by Parliament appears to have been settled by the passage of Section 16 and other related sections of the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the Hon. Member has agreed with this view.
In his presentation to the Joint Committee on Official Languages concerning Bill C-214, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier stated:
As far as l am concerned . . . Section 16 of the Constitution is binding. Moreover, Section 52(1) of Part VI1 of the Constitution is quite explicit in this matter.
The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
Therefore, it is clear, according to the Member, that the principle of linguistic equality alone is adequately covered by the Constitution.

Many Hon. Members are aware that in its fifth report which was tabled before Parliament in April, 1983, the Joint Committee proposed a number of amendments to the Official Languages Act. These amendments, which would have defined both the declaratory and executory characters of the Official Languages Act, provided that Canada's two official linguistic groups were to be equitably represented within every institution of the Parliament and government of Canada and at every level; that all federal Civil Servants could work in the language of their choice, subject to provisions governing the Civil Service, and that the provisions of the Act would apply to all Crown corporations and their subsidiaries as well as joint ventures.

With respect to the recommendation concerning Crown corporations, it is noteworthy that the joint committee's notes make it clear that the Act was to extend to any corporation or
Official Languages Act
mixed enterprise in which the Government of Canada had a controlling interest. I would like to take a minute to consider the implications of this particular proposition.
Since many subsidiaries of Crown corporations are private sector companies operating under the relevant laws, and probably cannot be considered as institutions of Parliament or the Government of Canada, I suggest that there could be problems if the primacy principle of Bill C-203 were enforced. The question I raised is this: Would all such private corporations in which the federal Government had a controlling interest, have to apply the provisions of the Official Languages Act or the Constitution which relate, or are presumed to relate, to service to the public, publication of notices, and language of work?
In addition, the Government of the day-which now sits in Opposition-in its December, 1983 response to the joint committee's recommendation noted that the Official Languages Act applied to Crown corporations as defined in Part VIII of the Financial Administration Act. In its response, that Government pointed out that attempts to bring all subsidiary corporations and mixed enterprises within the ambit of the Official Languages Act presented significant legal problems and that such a proposal needed to be thoroughly examined at all levels before such steps could be taken. I raise this point in order to identify the complexity of attempting to apply the Official Languages Act to Crown corporations and their subsidiaries. I do not say that it is something which should be studied thoroughly by the House, but I do not think we can rush into it.
For example, if the primacy proposal contained in Bill C-203, which my hon. friend has proposed, were to apply, what would be its effect on the question of the Official Languages Act in its application to Crown corporations and their subsidiaries?
As Members of the House know, Bill C-24 which was passed by the House on June 28, 1984, was an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations. Its provisions included a new Part XII in the Financial Administration Act which defined wholly-owned subsidiaries, and which made it possible for the Governor in Council to give a directive to any parent Crown corporation when it was in the public interest to do so.
If a directive were issued to certain corporations to apply some, but not all, official languages policies, because of the nature of the Crown corporation, would such a directive then be invalid if the primacy provision were in the Act? This possibility was raised by the representative of the Department of Justice in his testimony before the special joint committee in May of 1982. I would like to quote the relevant portion of his statement. He said:
In our opinion. Orders in Council not in accordance with the provisions of the Official Languages Act, as amended by Mr. Gauthier's Bill, could be cancelled, because in a very broad sense they are instruments of a regulatory legislative nature; from that point of view, they will have to conform to the principles incorporated by Mr. Gauthier's proposition into the Official Languages Act, just like actual regulations or Acts.

December 17, 1984
Official Languages Act
In my opinion, this illustrates the difficulties which are inherent in an absolutist provision such as the primacy proposal. I would remind Members of the House that the Constitution, in Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, recognizes the need for flexibility in the operations of government by providing for such reasonable limits to the guarantees provided by the Constitution as may be prescribed by law. The principle of recognizing limits to the applications of laws is a most important dimension in the legal framework which governs our Canadian society. If such limitations were absent, as appears to be the case with the primacy proposals contained in this Bill, indeed the consequences could be serious.
While Section 16 of the Charter of Rights states the general principle of equal status for both official languages, some limit to this right for French or English and to equal rights is in the very nature of government activities. I suggest that this is why it is in that section of the Constitution. We cannot read Section 16 of the Charter alone and give it an absolute content. It must be read in conjunction with the other sections of the Constitution. We have to consider exactly how Section 16 is going to be applied to any government activities, which do not exist by and of themselves but are there to provide services to individuals and to the public.
I see my time is up, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank the House for this opportunity to bring forward this point of view.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) for the quality of his French and for his effort to participate in the debate in both official languages of this country. For my part, I would like to support the bill introduced by my friend the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and his suggestion to have the said Bill referred to the Joint Committee on Official Languages Policy and Programs for further study.
I remember that when Mr. Walter Baker, the then Hon. Member for Ottawa-Nepean, was the spokesman of his party on this issue, he had supported in principle on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party a similar Bill introduced by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). He had definitely supported also his effort to have the Bill referred to a committee for further study. And frankly I am quite disappointed by the decision which the Progressive Conservative Party seems to have made, now that it is in power and unfortunately deprived of Mr. Baker's wise advice, not to allow the bill to be reviewed by the Committee on Official Languages.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate also my hon. colleague for his Bill and I, for one, suggest that it would be quite appropriate to consider again this proposal and the
motion that the Official Languages Act be given primacy over all other legislation and not only in the Constitution.
The Hon. Member from the Progressive Conservative Party who has just spoken has indicated that since the Canadian Constitution refers to the official languages and grants equal status to both of them, that is enough, and there is no need to require legislation to assert the primary of the Official Languages Act over all other legislation adopted by the House or orders in council, and so on. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I would be very skeptical about a statement to the effect that only judges, following an appeal made by a citizen, could rule whether the wishes of Parliament in the official languages field have been met. I would say that if we definitely and actually want to guarantee rights pertaining to the official languages, the concept of primacy makes much more sense than simply providing for such rights in the Constitution. The reason is that court proceedings are time-consuming. Since it is a costly process as well, it is not within the means of the average citizen. There have been recently the Bilodeau case in Manitoba and also a similar case involving a Montrealer, both of whom went before the Supreme Court for a parking ticket. Up to now those cases have cost thousands of dollars for the defence of rights provided under the Official Languages Act. Then, if those cases can be so expensive and so difficult in spite of the experience we have gained, the idea of giving primacy to those rights in the law of the land makes good sense.

I would say as well, Mr. Speaker, in replying, I suppose, to the comments made by the spokesperson for the Conservative Party, that it is surprising to find those Hon. Members changing their point of view from the days when they were in the Opposition now that they are in Government. It is also surprising to hear the argument that because the Constitution is there, therefore, this Bill is negative and should not be proceeded with, even to the extent of having it studied within the Official Languages Committee, a joint committee of the Senate and of the House.
The declaration in Clause 1 of this Bill is quite simple. It says that the Official Languages Act has primacy unless there is a specific declaration by Parliament in another Bill to the contrary. And there remains flexibility in the Bill because it is left up to Parliament to make the decision in each case as to whether or not it wants to exempt a particular piece of legislation from the primacy of the Official Languages Act. That is something which is quite easy for Parliament to do.
I believe, however, it is very important that that be done as a specific act of Parliament and not as something which is done offhand or, quite possibly, Mr. Speaker, something which is done as a consequence of the desires of some officials who might persuade the Minister to let a piece of legislation slip through, one which may not apparently touch on the Official Languages Act but which may, in fact, do so at the expense of the bilingualism which we seek to achieve in this country under federal law.
December 17, 1984

I have not had the experience of studying this project in the Official Languages Committee. If it goes there, I would certainly hope to have that experience. I am not aware of whether this Bill is totally ideal in its drafting or whether in fact changes or amendments might need to be made.
The question of Crown corporations has been raised. I do not see any fundamental problems there. If those problems are there, they can ventilated before the Official Languages Committee. However, simply to leave the matter now on the grounds that perhaps there were members of the Conservative caucus who felt that the Official Languages Act was a mistake, who declared themselves publicly beforehand-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is nonsense and you know it.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Well, I believe there are members from the Manitoba wing of the Conservative Party who made their feelings quite clear-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is not only a lot of nonsense, but unparliamentary.


Michael Morris Cassidy: -except when they were called to discipline by their Leader. At that point they reluctantly and grudgingly said they supposed that they supported the Official Languages Act.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Absolute nonsense.


Michael Morris Cassidy: But it was grudging, and we all know, Mr. Speaker, that some of those people have been quite active in their support of the other side of the issue, as has been the Leader and the entire caucus of the Conservative Party in the Province of Manitoba. It is to the discredit of the Conservative Party that its colleagues in the Province of Manitoba sought to exploit the language issue and sought to inflame that particular issue over several months in the course of the last year or so.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that this House should acknowledge the great courage of Howard Pawley, the Premier of Manitoba, his Cabinet and the New Democratic Government. [Translation]
The courage demonstrated by Premier Howard Fawley, his Cabinet and the New Democratic Party, the Government of the Province of Manitoba, faced with the opposition of the Conservative Party in that province and the efforts made by the NDP Government in Manitoba, not to solve a problem of their own making but one which began with the Conservative Party, I do not know precisely when, that problem has been with us for over half a century. So, the courage demonstrated by the New Democratic Party in trying to find a solution, to negotiate a settlement with the French-Speaking community in Manitoba-
Mr. Speaker, we intend to get more votes in the Province of Quebec in the next election. As I said when I was in Quebec City last Friday, our party caucus intends to open the way to
Official Languages Act
Quebec, to co-operate with our party in that Province, to provide Quebecers with a real choice in the next election.
Mr. Speaker, I noticed during the last election that Quebecers very clearly wanted a change in the Liberal Party. They have stated bluntly that they are looking for a change. But in many cases the change they got was not what they expected.
The only option available in the last election was the Conservative Party. That is why the voters elected so many Conservative Members of Parliament. I suspect that many Quebecers have agreed with the policy put forward by the Conservative Party during the election campaign. But I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether those Quebecers who chose to vote for the Conservative Party really wanted the policies that are now being suggested, that are being implemented by the Conservative Government, now that they are in office and not simply campaigning?
I noted, Mr. Speaker, how the Conservative Party said one thing during the last election but is now admitting frankly that they withheld their policies from voters for fear of not winning public favour-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Will you address the Bill?


Michael Morris Cassidy: I was simply replying, Mr. Speaker, to the interjections of the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis). Perhaps I can now return to the Bill.
I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, in the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has indicated that it is no longer a priority for him to ensure that Ontario take the necessary steps to become officially bilingual. I guess I can comment on the fact that the Premier of Ontario, Mr. Davis, spent his last day in the Legislature on Friday. He is standing down and a new leader will come to the fore after the convention which is being held in January. I am disappointed that not one of the four candidates for Premier of Ontario is prepared to put his reputation on the line and say that he is prepared to make Ontario officially-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have carefully read the very thoughtful Bill which was put forward by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). In that particular Bill there is absolutely no reference to the leadership campaign in Ontario.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order.


Michael Morris Cassidy: My colleague comes from Ontario, Mr. Speaker, and I do like to talk about matters relating to Ontario. He has criticized my comments on Quebec, and after having made

December 17, 1984
Official Languages Act
those comments on Quebec, I will try to switch to another subject.
Reverting to this Bill, Mr. Speaker, I believe it has to be considered in committee. I don't know if all the proposed amendments make sense, but that is why committees exist, to study the details in depth. As I said, I think this House is supposed to discuss not just the Official Languages Act but also the whole question of bilingualism. As I just said, I feel one of the most ignored points to date has been the refusal by the Province of Ontario to accept bilingualism, I mean official bilingualism, for Ontario; and frankly I am very disappointed by the fact that when the Liberals were in power, neither the then Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, nor his Cabinet, or his Government, were willing to put pressures on the Conservative Government, their good friends in constitutional matters, to make sure that Ontario would accept Section 133 of the British North America Act with respect to bilingualism in Ontario.
To conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to leave some time for my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) who wants to make sure that this legislation will be deferred to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages Policies and Programs for detailed study and, hopefully, get back here in this House for adoption in the near future.


Mr. Pierre H. Cadieux (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, before I start my speech on this particular Bill I want to point out to my colleague on the other side that in my riding in the Province of Quebec there was, during the last election, an NDP candidate, but he was not elected. So they had another choice besides the Conservatives.
[ Translation]
Since it is the first time I rise in this House, Mr. Speaker, I will start with a few remarks about my constituency of Vaudreuil. I would like to convey my gratitude to my constituents who put their trust in me as their representative and I am convinced that they will do so again in coming years. But I want to extend my best wishes to my predecessor, Mr. Hal Herbert, who had been the member for Vaudreuil for 12 years.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, we are considering today an important Bill, as can be seen from the explanatory notes, considering that its purpose is to assert the primacy of the Official Languages Act over other acts and regulations of the Parliament and Government of Canada.
While listening to the previous speakers, Mr. Speaker, I could not help but think that the progress they mentioned was the result of years of efforts, compromise and adjustments of all sorts. Since the very beginning of Confederation, section 133 of the Constitutional Act of 1867 provided that the use of either French or English was to be allowed before the Canadian courts and in the proceedings of Parliament. As well, use of both languages was mandatory in legislation, records, reports
and proceedings of this institution. Through the years, we gradually moved towards the Official Languages Act, which was passed in 1969, and more recently the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in which linguistic rights are clearly defined.
Linguistic reform in Canada bears the stamp of historical continuity as was so rightly put by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) in the speech he delivered, on behalf of the Prime Minister of Canada, before the national conference on linguistic services organized by the Secretary of State last October for the 50th anniversary of the Translation Bureau. He recalled that, through the years, there was a slow accumulation of progress and improvements. In 1927, for example, stamps became bilingual; in 1934, the government of Prime Minister Bennett established the Bureau of Translation; in 1936, banknotes became bilingual too. In 1945, the government began to issue family allowances cheques in both languages to Quebec homes. In 1962, the Diefenbaker government generalized that practice, making all financial operations by cheques bilingual. Three years earlier, in 1959, the Diefenbaker government established simultaneous interpretation here in the House of Commons. All that became with time normal practice for Canadians to the extent that we have sometimes the impression that it has always been the case.
This demonstrates, Mr. Speaker, that this long development towards equality between English and French as official languages of Canada was only possible because of the joint efforts of the federal governments which have followed one another since Confederation, thanks to the capacity of Canadians parliamentarians to understand all the complexity of these questions, legislating in this very sensitive area only when all the studies had been made and the time was right, which means when there was a certain consensus among the Canadian people.
After extensive preparations and thanks to the reflexion aroused by the work and the report of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, the Official Languages Act which we propose to amend today was in 1969 an important benchmark in this long historical evolution which characterizes the Canadian process. This act, which was passed with the support of all the political parties in the House, extended the principles of bilingualism within the federal administration and emphasized the duties of the departments and other institutions of the federal government in their responsibility to serve the Canadian public in both official languages.
I should like to remind Hon. Members that since the coming into force of the Canadian Charter of Rights, in April 1982, the basic principles of the Official Languages Act are finally entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. The entrenchment of our fundamental linguistic rights into our Canadian Constitution, which again was approved by all political parties is in keeping with the best Canadian tradition of tolerance and civility and that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has
December 17, 1984

firmly resolved to revive everywhere. With the Official Languages Act the federal public administration, has become more consistent, both from the viewpoint of its representativeness and the services it offers, with the realities of Canadian life. Through that legislation, we now enjoy a better balanced Public Service, which is just starting to truly serve the Canadian people in the language of their choice.
Therefore, in a few years time, backed by a solid tradition of tolerance and social justice, the federal Government in its Public Service and various institutions, has made some remarkable progress.
Of course, when it was the Official Opposition, the Progressive Conservative Party did criticize some aspects of the administration of the language policy of previous governments with some exaggeration perhaps but, as the Hon. President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) recalled on October 9 last, it has always supported the program's objectives as well as its administrative consequences. He then stated that the challenge we now have to meet as the new government, is not only to maintain what has already been achieved in the area of official languages but also improve existing services. In short, to do more and better, and for less money than our predecessors.
In the same vein, even though time is running short, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from the statement of the Hon. President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) which will indicate to the House how the Progressive Conservative Party intends to tackle the study of the official languages issue, including the consideration of this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on December 6 I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) who in the Government had approved of his factum, that is his written argument, in the Duncan MacDonald case before the Supreme Court of Canada. 1 also raised this same issue on December 10 and December 12. In addition, my colleague, the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has raised this issue on several other occasions.
Adjournment Debate
Early in December we learned that the Minister of Justice had, by way of intervention, filed a factum in the Supreme Court of Canada opposing Duncan MacDonald's contention that under Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, he had the right to be summoned to the Quebec courts in the English language. Section 133 of the Constitution is that section which guarantees citizens the right to use their own language, English or French, in the courts of Canada and Quebec, as well as in the Parliament of Canada and the legislature of Quebec.
The question to be decided by the Supreme Court in this case was formulated by Mr. Justice Ritchie when he granted leave to appeal and is as follows:
Does a summons which is printed and published in the French language only and commands an English speaking person to appear before the Courts of Quebec offend the provisions of S, 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, resulting in a total absence of jurisdiction of the Court to proceed against him?
The Minister of Justice, who is also the Attorney General for Canada, has given the following answers to my questions. In the first place he said that the factum had been approved by the Liberal Government before him. Mr. Speaker, I checked that point and it is absolutely false. The factum is dated November, 1984. In addition, I checked with the Minister of Justice who preceded the present Minister of Justice, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) who was the Minister of Justice before September 17 and had been the Minister for several months. He said that the factum was never put before him for approval.
It is possible that some preparatory work on that factum was being done by civil servants in the months that preceded the Conservative Government. However, the fact that preparatory work was being done does not mean that approval was given. As we all know, civil servants prepare documents and positions for Ministers to approve. The approval, as I say, was not given under the previous Government. It was sent ahead under the Government which is in power today.
It is possible that some confusion has arisen in the mind of the Minister of Justice between the decision to intervene in the case and the approval of the factum. It is true that the decision to intervene in the Duncan MacDonald case by the Government of Canada was made under the previous Liberal Government. However, that is a decision simply to intervene in the case and not the position on the factum. The factum is the written argument which, as I said a few minutes ago, was sent to the court and prepared and approved in the month of November, 1984.
The next answer that was given to me by the Minister of Justice was that the content of the factum was decided upon by the legal officers in his Department and that he had no responsibility for it. Mr. Speaker, that is completely unacceptable. The Minister of Justice is the Attorney General for Canada. He is the chief legal officer for the Crown. He is the chief legal officer for the Government of Canada, and he has the responsibility for any document, paper or legal opinion which goes from his office under his name to any court in Canada. This factum, which bears the name of the Attorney General of Canada, certainly should have been his responsibili-
[Stage Direction]
December 17, 1984

Adjournment Debate
ty. He cannot slough off the responsibility for the contents of that factum on the officials in his Department.
As a lawyer he should know that there are always many legal opinions on any question. In this case we have the Societe Franco-Manitobaine which has intervened in the case and supported Duncan MacDonald. This association has looked at the precedents in the law and supported Duncan MacDonald. Alliance Quebec, which is an organization of Anglophones in the Province of Quebec, has intervened in this case and decided to support Duncan MacDonald.
The next answer the Minister gave me was that he had not read the factum, and that I had jumped on him because he had not read the factum. I return to what I said a few seconds ago. He has, as the Attorney General, the responsibility to read the factum. It was under his name and there is no way it should have gone forward without his examination and approval. That is his job in the Government of Canada as the Attorney General. To admit that he had not read the factum was a disregard of responsibility.
The Minister also said to my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, when he questioned him about the same thing, that he was making a mountain out of a molehill. I want to say to him and to the Government, the language question in Quebec is certainly not a molehill. That question is being heard tomorrow morning in the Supreme Court of Canada.
We have asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Justice to withdraw this factum, or to say nothing if they cannot say anything good. We had hoped originally that the Government of Canada would support MacDonald as other governments have supported people who were pleading for minority language rights. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that the Government is withdrawing that odious factum and will at least be quiet tomorrow morning when Duncan MacDonald pleads his case before the Supreme Court.
Mr. Chris Speyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, it is important in the interests of the Canadian system of justice not to argue this case in this House because, as my friend has pointed out, it is to be argued tomorrow morning in the Supreme Court of Canada. However, the Opposition leaves the Government no choice but to mention a couple of matters that pertain to this case.
First, it is part of the traditional role of the Attorney General of Canada to intervene before the Supreme Court when important constitutional issues are at stake. The intervention in this case took place on July 18. Iam not sure, quite frankly, what date the factum was filed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: November, 1984.


Chris Speyer: But I do know that on July 28, the deadline for the intervention, the Liberals were in power.
Second, there is one thing on which I agree with the Hon. Member and that is with respect to the policy. The requirement of a bilingual summons would be the most desirable policy, for many reasons. One reason is that there may be more than one accused, speaking both languages. Another reason is that it is not always possible to know in advance which language the accused will wish to use; therefore, to be sure of having a summons in that language, both languages are necessary. The difficulty with reading this policy into the section is that Section 133 makes clear that process issued by a court may be in either language. Moreover, this provision is included in a paragraph that makes clear that laws must be in both languages. If this were the intent for process, it would also be clear.
I say to the Hon. Member, who has raised this on many occasions matter over many years in the House, and feels very deeply about it, that the legal aspects are going to be decided by the court tomorrow, based upon an interpretation of Section 133. Whatever the policy is, and the policy was stated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that we will defend minority rights in all provinces-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Withdraw the factum.


Chris Speyer: We will not withdraw the factum because an interpretation of Section 133 has to be made before the Supreme Court of Canada. We take the facts as we get them. We cannot withdraw. It is a public law case and our intervention is important. Notwithstanding my friend's intense interest in this matter, a proper construction on the facts of this case, Section 133, must go ahead and we will not withdraw the factum.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION-MORATORIUM ON FARM FORECLOSURES. (B) PROPOSED UNITED STATES PROGRAM
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, on December 10 I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) concerning the intentions of the Minister to introduce legislation in the House before the Christmas recess and hopefully have it passed, because of the very serious debt crisis facing thousands of farm families across this nation.
In early November the Minister of Agriculture instituted a moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures to January 15. I note that if the Minister was not to take any action in the intervening time between early November and January 15, it was obviously just a cynical trick on his part, not allowing foreclosures to take place. When he put on the moratorium, he indicated that he would put in place policies and programs to assist young producers facing financial crises, yet nothing is on the Order Paper to date.
The FCC has appeared before the standing committee. They have not indicated what is being planned by the Department. The Minister's reply was simply that they were putting in place an FCC appeal process. They talked about a couple of

December 17, 1984

pilot project review boards in southwestern Ontario. Also the Minister mentioned previously that he lowered the FCC interest rate from 15 per cent to 14 per cent on a 20-year loan.
We are talking about the kinds of promises which the Tories made in the last election campaign. I should like to refer to their campaign material, particularly the document issued by the then Leader of the Opposition on July 5 in Prince Albert.
It indicated that since many producers found their economic viability threatened as a result of being locked into long-term, high-interest rate loans, they would immediately allocate the necessary funding to assist producers in refinancing their loans at prevailing rates. When will the Government introduce that legislation? It is very clear. It indicated that it would reduce Farm Credit loans and all farm loans and immediately allocate adequate funding to refinance outstanding loans to current day prevailing rates. They have not done that. They have not brought in legislation. There is nothing on the Order Paper today from the Minister of Agriculture to implement that campaign promise, or any other one.
I asked the Minister whether he would consider putting in place a program tailored to Canadian needs, Canadian resources and so on, such as the one in the United States. Its set aside program provides a set-aside under farmers' home administration loans of up to 25 per cent for up to a five-year period and, for bank loans, where the bank will forgo up to 10 per cent, it will provide a 90 per cent loan guarantee on the balance. I asked him whether the Government would implement such a program to suit Canadian needs. It was done in the United States over two months ago. The Minister displayed his lack of information by saying that the program was only proposed and was not in operation. In fact, it was approved by the U.S. administration on September 18 and has been the law of that land ever since.
The key point is that we have some 39,000 farm families across the country who are facing very serious financial crises. The FCC estimates that some 1,700 of these families are actually facing financial collapse because of the farm financing situation due to low commodity prices, to high input costs, which are gradually rising, including interest rates, and to falling land values. Many farmers who were in very good positions only four or five years ago are now faced with practically no equity at all. Some 1,700 of them are actually facing farm bankruptcy.
We are asking the Minister to come forward and implement the policies which he promised in the election campaign, or implement other programs, not to talk about farm credit review boards as though that would have a tremendous impact on assisting the hard pressed farmers.
Last week before the standing committee it was estimated that farm debt had increased from $5 billion a couple of years ago to approximately $19 billion at this time. The crisis relates to our youngest farmers, our most productive farmers, who produce at least half of our farm products.
Adjournment Debate
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will indicate that the Minister is going to take some concrete and effective steps to help resolve the farm debt crisis facing this country today.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is for me a pleasure to answer that question because I think our Government is doing a very good job for the farmers. Since the present problems faced by farmers result from disastrous economic policies implemented by the previous Government, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) should realize it will take more than two months to repair mistakes made by the previous administration over a twenty-year period. Obviously, it is impossible and even unthinkable to lower suddenly the interest rates, even though I agree they are too high.
However, Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) made two very important announcements for Canadian farmers. First, interest rates charged by the Farm Credit Corporation have dropped drastically. Since December 10th, the interest on loans approved under the Farm Credit Act has decreased. Presently, the interest rate is 13.25 per cent for 5-year loans, 135/s per cent for 10-year loans and 14 per cent for 20-year loans. Even if 1 per cent seems to be a relatively small reduction, the consequences will be far-reaching because these loans amount to hundreds of millions or even hundreds of billions of dollars. In fact, this represents a % of 1 per cent reduction depending on the loan duration. Besides, the interest rate charged under the Farm Syndicates Credit Act dropped as well to 13 % from 13%.
The Hon. Member should also be pleased by the second announcement made by the Hon. Minister of Agriculture. He is wondering about what will happen after January 15 to farms which benefited from an interruption in the Farm Credit Corporation's collection procedures. Moreover, it is interesting to note that it is only recently that members from the previous government have been expressing concerns about agricultural producers. Before that, they were not concerned about this situation.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister has asked, the Farm Credit Corporation to expand the mandate of its appeal boards, in order for them to review the cases in which it is considering the foreclosure of mortgaged assets.
There are 10 appeal boards, one for each province, and each one is comprised of experienced farmers. At the request of borrowers who are on the verge of losing their assets to the Farm Credit Corporation or those placed in a dire financial situation, the appeal boards, and this is important, will review the cases. Each case will be examined without prejudice by a third party. This seems important to me because of the circumstances, Mr. Speaker. The appeal boards will allow the farmer to ask all his creditors to appear before them. In the presence of all those who are interested in the survival of this farmer one has to think about the survival of the farmer, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
December 17, 1984
Adjournment Debate
Speaker, the appeal boards will be in a much better position to assess the options which would allow the farmer to come through.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret, but I must interrupt the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-EFFECT OF BUDGETARY CUT BACKS ON WRITERS. (B) EFFECT ON INCOMES
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, both in Parliament and outside of Parliament, there has been a great deal of discussion about the $75 million which has been cut from the budget of the CBC. It has been made clear that the CBC has had to issue lay-off notices to 750 of its present employees. What has not been discussed is the fact that there are thousands of people who do not work for the CBC full time who will be affected. These include writers, actors, musicians and dancers, to name just a few who do not work for the CBC but who work occasionally on programs produced by the CBC. The payment these people receive from the CBC has been a substantial part of their total income. Thousands of these people will not be able to do the work they did before the budget-cutting program is put into effect.
Before and during the election campaign the arts and culture community campaigned vigorously by contacting the three political Parties and urging them to continue to support the activities of the arts and culture community which are so important if this country is not to become the 51st state of the United States of America. Each Party made commitments to the arts and culture community.
Members of the Conservative Party, when they were in opposition, promised the arts and culture community that if they were elected, funding would continue at last year's level plus whatever increases were dictated by the cost of living. Now that Conservative Members are in Government, they have announced cuts to all of the culture institutions including the National Arts Centre, the Canada Council and the National Film Board. They have announced a major cut of almost 10 per cent to the CBC. As I indicated, $75 million of this cut relates to programming and $10 million relates to technical equipment.
When the Minister is asked about this, he continually says that he directed the CBC to make the cuts in the administration and to let programming continue. I think the CBC tried very hard to do that but the scope of the cut is such that programming must be cut. When 750 people including writers, producers, sports and news people are let go, the programs which they helped produce do not continue.
The Minister indicated that most of the cuts will be made at the head offices in Toronto and Montreal. Major cuts were made there. However, the fact is that regional cuts will also be very substantial. In the City of Winnipeg, which has played a pretty important role in the operation of the CBC, 80 people
are going. In Vancouver, 70 people are going. In Windsor, 50 people are going. In Halifax, 45 people are going. In every community in which the CBC operates, people are going. Those people were not sitting there doing nothing. Those people were in charge of programming.
What happens now to the kind of programming the CBC was directed to do the day it was established in the 1930s by a Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. R. B. Bennett? When he proposed that the CBC be established, Mr. Bennett said that we needed an organization like the CBC to highlight the Canadian identity.
In the City of Winnipeg, programs which were to have been produced next year which would have employed symphony and chamber orchestras will be gone after this year. Drama programs which were produced in Winnipeg and televised will be gone. That is the inevitable result of what this Government is doing. It is a disaster for Canadian arts and culture. It is a disaster for a country such as Canada.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, in responding to my distinguished colleague from Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), I am pleased to comment in somewhat greater detail on the very painful exercise which affects writers, creators, musicians, dancers, singers and others in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The reduction of some $75 million of parliamentary appropriation will affect in a very unfortunate way the people who are involved.
Before specifically addressing the matter, I feel it is important to stress that the Minister, and indeed most Members, recognize that the CBC plays a very vital role in Canada. I am a personal fan of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The Hon. Member is right in saying that the CBC was a creation of a Conservative Government. It was created in the days of R. B. Bennett. We are convinced that it makes a terrifically important contribution to the cultural life of the country. We want the CBC to be as effective in its expenditure of public funds as it is creative in its programming.
The President of the CBC announced on December 11 the Corporation's plans to cut $75 million from its budget. In reducing its budget, the CBC is trying to use attrition, the freezing of vacant positions, early retirement, and, as a last resort, lay-offs. As the Minister announced in the House last Friday, he approved the CBC's request for amendments to its pension plan which will facilitate early retirement, which should minimize the loss of jobs.
In making its budget reductions, the CBC announced that it has not exempted any activities from its review. Therefore, I would expect that all aspects of the Corporation, including contract work, will be examined closely by the CBC. As the Minister has previously stated, he and the President of the CBC, after serious and thorough consultations within the framework of the respective jurisdictional and regulatory responsibilities, agreed that budget reductions would be applied mainly to the CBC's administrative areas so as to
December 17, 1984-

safeguard creativity and production in the cultural areas. This would take place both regionally and nationally.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.
Adjournment Debate
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.30 p.m. the House adjourned.

Tuesday, December 18, 1984