1984-05-16

Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that yet another plant in my riding may be forced to shut down or lay off workers due to the loss of a market for its products. The company in question, Port Colborne Forgings, was informed recently that forgings from the company destined for use by the United States military would no longer be required as of May 24. This came about as a result of a directive issued by the American Government which indicated, essentially, that as of that date no defence contracts were to be let to companies outside the United States. This ruling affects a number of companies in Canada doing related work.
For the City of Port Colborne this sudden and arbitrary decision could mean the loss of another 25 jobs in a community already badly shaken by massive lay-offs at Inco. As their federal Member of Parliament I ask, on behalf of the company and the community, that officials from the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and the Department of External Affairs take immediate action to ensure that this directive is softened or changed. By so doing, we could ensure that Canadian companies continue to be able to export products for the United States defence market, especially in light of the fact that we in this country are co-operating with our neighbours to the South in fulfilling our treaty obligations under NATO and NORAD.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the issue of Section 12(1 )(b) of the Indian Act. I urge the Government to proceed with its stated commitment to repeal this flagrant discriminatory provision. I know I speak for all women of Canada, and indeed for all women in the House regardless of party affiliations. We must
not be deterred from rectifying this long-standing historic wrong committed against Indian women. I call upon the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), and upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to follow through on this promise. I call upon them to act immediately to repeal Section 12(1 )(b) of the Indian Act.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week members of all Parties in the House took part in hearings on the dreadful situation of Soviet Jews. Quite simply, official anti-semitism has been raised to the level of state religion in a godless society.
First, of an estimated three million Jews in the Soviet Union, an estimated 400,000 have made at least an initial attempt to leave. In 1979, 51,000 were permitted to do so, but during 1983 only 1,344 were allowed.
Second, since the Soviet Union signed the Helsinki Agreement, which includes the right to emigrate, the situation of Soviet Jews has actually deteriorated. Applicants face arbitrary dismissal from work or university, persecution of their children, telephone disconnections, non-receipt of mail, separation of families, and the constant risk of imprisonment. We heard eloquent case histories on Tuesday about Vladimir Slepak, Iosif Begun, and others.
One obvious conclusion I reached was that Canada must have a more human rights oriented foreign policy. The case of human rights cannot be served anywhere by silence. We, as legislators, must show more courage and leadership to our fellow countrymen on this important issue in the future.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, today in Edmonton the Assembly of First Nations is meeting with the Native Women's Association of Canada to discuss a most discriminatory Section of the Indian Act, namely, Section 12(l)(b). Mention has been made of this particular Section already today.

May 16, 1984
As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Indian Women and the Indian Act, it is of great concern to me that changes to this Section of the Indian Act might not be forthcoming as a result of disagreements among various Indian organizations.
Section 12(1 )(b) legalizes discrimination, and it must be changed. It has caused pain and suffering for many Indian women who have lost their Indian status upon marrying non-Indians. These women and their children have been separated from their families, forced to leave their homes on reserves, and have lost all benefits accorded to our native people.
It is my hope that these differences will be resolved, and that legislation will be forthcoming to correct this most unjust treatment of Canada's native women.


FINANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to reduce the federal deficit, two approaches have apparently been overlooked by the Liberals and the Conservatives. One reason we have such a large deficit is because we offer billions of dollars in grants each year to domestic and foreign corporations operating in Canada. For example, is it not time to ask whether it is necessary to give out billions of dollars in bribes to oil companies to entice them to explore for oil and gas in our frontier areas? PIP grants are corporate financial hand-outs on a scale not found anywhere else in the world. Is it not time to stop this corporate giveaway madness?
If we hope to reduce the deficit, why not collect taxes which are rightfully due to the federal coffers? The billions of dollars of deferred corporate taxes virtually equal the federal deficit. If we had a fair tax system where every individual and every corporation paid their fair share of taxes, our deficit would be virtually eliminated. Therefore, if we are genuinely concerned about the deficit situation facing Canadians, let us stop the corporate welfare system and close tax loopholes, rather than raise personal income taxes and eliminate the universality of social programs.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, March 23, 1984, I read to the House excerpts from a letter which we thought had been written by Bob Nixon, former Leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, to John Turner. The House will remember that the letter referred to the fact that turn around Turner had quit as an MP and had gone on to notoriety and fortune as a Bay Street lawyer. The letter also referred to turn around Turner's lack of familiarity with
modern media techniques. The letter did not refer to his support for Bill 101 in Quebec. That came later, followed by the usual clarifications.
Mr. Nixon has since written to me to deny writing the letter. We do not know who would write such a letter, but MPs from ridings such as Trinity and Kitchener would probably suspect one of Jimmy Coutts' backroom operators. In any event, Mr. Nixon did not write the letter and I want to dispel any rumour that he, along with most provincial Liberals, is annoyed at turn around Turner for quitting in the middle of the 1975 Ontario election campaign. The fact that Mr. Nixon is supporting the Minister of Energy (Mr. Chretien) rather than turn around Turner in the leadership campaign is, of course, coincidental.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the Town Council of Souris in my constituency recently passed a resolution calling on the Canada Post Corporation to "institute a less discriminatory system of mail delivery in smaller centres". This resolution was brought about, in part, by the representations of a local resident, Mr. Bert Smith, who has for some time been making a strong case against the levying of rental charges for post office boxes in small communities.
The people of Souris, along with citizens of other small communities, feel they are being discriminated against by Canada Post. Unlike the residents of larger communities, they do not enjoy free home mail delivery; instead, they have to make their way to the post office to pick up their mail from post office boxes for which they must pay rent. The President of Canada Post recently explained to me in writing that those who rent post office boxes in small towns are buying a service which is beyond the so-called basic Canada Post service. I find that explanation difficult to accept.
The bottom line is that home delivery is preferable by most people's standards, and it is free, while picking up one's mail at a post office box is far less convenient and it costs money. I ask the Minister responsible for Canada Post to abolish post office box rental fees in small communities in order to rectify what is now very clearly an inequitable situation.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, after nearly two years' absence VIA Rail service is going to be re-established between Winnipeg, Melville, Saskatoon, and Edmonton on June 3. The Town of Raymore, along with the support of a great many surrounding towns and villages, has proposed to VIA Rail that Raymore be declared a flag stop for those passengers who want to go east to Melville or beyond, or
May 16, 1984

west to Saskatoon or beyond. Since tickets have to be purchased in advance, computer notification to the engine crew would not be a problem.
Raymore is a point through which a lot of bus traffic passes each day. The users of the bus tend to be the same clientele who would use the train, except that they prefer to use trains for extended voyages. The connection and timing of the current bus schedule and the proposed train schedule are close enough to make Raymore a logical connection point between the two transportation modes.
Bus passengers from a collection area as far away as Nor-quay, Hudson Bay, Melfort, Tisdale, Watson, Wynyard, Wadena and points in between, come through Raymore and would have access to VIA Rail if their application currently before the CTC is accepted. I urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) to look with approval at this sensible proposal for an inter-modal connection at Raymore in order that service to the residents of communities in the Raymore passenger service area be improved.


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, the home owners of Canada need a break. The home owners are the only property owners in Canada who cannot deduct property taxes paid to a municipal Government from income, for calculating both the federal and provincial income taxes. This is unfair. This is not equitable. This taxing practice is unjust. This must be changed so that no taxpayer in Canada will be forced to pay income taxes on municipal taxes paid. Surely it is unjust to classify municipal taxes paid on home ownership as income for both federal and provincial income tax purposes.
The next federal Government, whatever its political colour, should make property taxes paid on the principal place of residence deductible when calculating income tax. To provide fairness between home owners, a maximum limit of $500, or even up to $1,000, may be placed on such deductions.
If the federal Government does not have the sense of justice to do this, I would then call on the provincial Governments to lead the way and provide deductibility when calculating provincial income taxes. Indeed, I urge and challenge the provincial Government of Alberta to lead the way toward fairness and justice in this regard.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members of the House will know, for three months now the Minister of National Revenue has had a stable of high-priced flacks on the public payroll who are looking for ways to improve the image of the Department of National Revenue. We on this side of the House are more concerned about how to improve the Department's treatment of taxpayers than about how to improve the Department's image. We have made some 76 recommendations for ways to do that. I would like to ask the Minister about one of those recommendations.
Will the Minister give Canadian taxpayers the assurance that, in future, disputed amounts of taxes payable that have been reassessed will not have to be paid until the taxpayer has had a chance to have a fair hearing?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that a procedure already exists under which the tax payer does not have to pay the amount of tax payable right away if he is appealing his assessment. In fact, the tax payer can negotiate a guarantee with the Department of Revenue which will be accepted in lieu of case payment of the amount payable in the notice of assessment, in case of an appeal. One of the proposals in the report prepared by the committee chaired by the Hon. Member seeks to change completely our present practice and to go much further.
As I have said previously to the Hon. Member, the proposal has a number of implications, an important one being that there would be a substantial increase in the number of appeals and in the amount of tax payable, which is already very high.
However, and I have had occasion to discuss this with the Hon. Member, perhaps we could add to this mechanism a provision that would further improve the procedure. However, this recommendation, with others, is still being examined within the Department. I would like to repeat that instead of paying the full amount when there is an appeal, the tax payer can negotiate with the Department to provide a satisfactory guarantee as a form of insurance for the amount owing to the Crown.


ISSUANCE OF RUBBER STAMPED GARNISHEE ORDERS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister about another of the task force's recommendations. The task force also pointed out that low-level collections officers in the Department with very

May 16, 1984
Oral Questions
little supervision were using rubber stamps to authorize garnishee orders to seize people's pay cheques and bank accounts. Is the Minister prepared to take away those rubber stamps and ensure that, in future, all garnishee orders to seize a person's pay cheque and bank account must be signed by a senior official of the Department?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, steps have also been taken to deal with this particular problem, and I can assure the Hon. Member and Canadian tax payers that no garnishee orders are issued until a thorough review at management level has taken place, and often, in cases where the garnishee order is very substantial, at headquarters here in Ottawa. However, I may point out to the Hon. Member that in the case of occurrences in isolated areas, sometimes authorization has been given before the officer leaves the office. However, this happens only in exceptional circumstances and under direction of Revenue Office Managers.


REQUEST THAT FORMER EMPLOYEE BE REINSTATED
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that in December a highly respected official of the Department who worked in the Kitchener district office, Mr. Darryl Cruickshank, resigned his job in order to press for better treatment of taxpayers. Since that time he has been unemployed. In view of the fact that even the Department now acknowledges that the charges that were made by Mr. Cruickshank were correct, will the Minister acknowledge Mr. Cruickshank's courage and integrity by requesting him to rejoin the Department and putting Mr. Cruickshank's talents to use in improving service to the taxpayers?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that if Mr. Cruickshank is interested in working again for the Department, he can let us know through the usual channels. I think it is quite understandable that at a given point and for a given period a person may feel uncomfortable in his work, for reasons that may be entirely justified. I am sure that if he offers his services, his offer will be given very serious consideration by the Department.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALISTS' REPORT
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister, who would want Canadians to believe that his attitude and that of the Department have changed. My question may help in that regard.
The press reports that the draft report of his communications specialists appears to be ready. Will the Minister guarantee to the House that that report, which appears to suggest that public perception of Revenue Canada is more important than improving services, will be placed before Parliament in its entirety, unexpurgated, along with the Minister's responses and comments, so that Parliament may understand whether the attitudes and behaviour will truly change, or whether we will in fact be engaged in another public relations scam to try to persuade Canadians that something has changed which has not really changed?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I should think that the concept of attitude-and surely the Hon. Member will agree with me-is relative and applies to a group of individuals as well as to other groups. An attitude is not unlike a perception, and quite often a perception leads to changes in attitudes. I would not want him to minimize the significance of attitudes and perceptions.
As to the report of the communications group, 1 have already told the House that I will make that report public, and 1 will be pleased to do so as soon as I get the final report.


REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF AUDITORS' TRAINING FILMS
John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, when asked earlier about the films entitled "Investigative Approach to Auditing", the Minister said that he would make no decision about those films until the task force had reported. Given that the report at least appears to be in draft form, which I presume he has seen, is he finally ready to exercise his ministerial responsibilities and withdraw those films which have the effect of persuading the people in his Department that taxpayers are not honest citizens? Will he now take his responsibility and tell the House today that those films have no place in the training of auditors in this country?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions on that subject with my senior officials and I can assure the Hon. Member that the various training aids we use will be reconsidered so as to reflect a much more positive approach based on principles of education and respect for rights, while at the same time taking into account the responsibilities of the taxpayers.


NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns a decision by
May 16, 1984

the United States Department of the Interior to put up part of Canada for sale. I refer to approximately 400 square miles of land off the northern coast of British Columbia.
As the Prime Minister is aware, in 1903 there was an International Boundary Tribunal, half of whose members were Americans, which unanimously agreed that the West Coast Canada-U.S. border should be the 54.40 latitude. The land in question that the Americans are now trying to sell, after 81 years of accepting this boundary, is clearly within Canadian territory.
My question concerns the possible immediate problem if this land is sold in the United States to an oil company. An immediate, expensive, conflict-laden dispute will arise. In light of this, will the Prime Minister contact President Reagan as soon as possible to make it clear that the land that the Americans are trying to sell belongs to the people of Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is not talking of the land but of the seabed. If that is the case, he will know there is a dispute in those waters, and we have been trying to resolve it with the United States. I understand the Department of External Affairs has lodged a protest against this unilateral action by the U.S. I do not think the action, as I recall it, goes to the extent of the Hon. Member's description of putting up the land for sale. I think there is a dispute on the sense of what the Americans have done, and we have protested it. I do not see any need to phone President Reagan at this stage.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am a little disturbed at the rather complacent attitude taken by the Prime Minister. I tell him that the land is up for sale-no question about that. It could be purchased by an oil company any time in the next week. In fact part of the territory in dispute-not by us because we claim it as our territory-has been sold. They have sold part of the seabed in question to oil companies, and we do not know if part of it is land that belongs to Canada or if they simply sold their own territory.
Does the Prime Minister think it is adequate to have a very junior official in the Department of External Affairs file a softly worded expression of concern with his equivalent low level official in the U.S.? Why is the important question of Canadian sovereignty not dealt with where it should be, on a head of Government to head of Government basis, namely, through the Prime Minister correctly informing President Reagan of what the reality is?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we lodged a protest in the usual way with the Americans. If I were to phone President Reagan, or he were to phone me, every time there is a disagreement on something, we would spend all our time talking to each other. We have always managed our relationship with the United States well, and we
Oral Questions
will continue to do so. There is obviously some disagreement, but I think the Hon. Member is panicking a little bit if he thinks the United States is selling part of Canada. I wish he would come to his senses. We all recall the hucksters selling the Brooklyn Bridge. I want to tell the Hon. Member that if he bought the Brooklyn Bridge he would not have a clear title, nor would anyone who bought Canada's land.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about the Brooklyn Bridge. We are talking about part of Canada, and it is time the Prime Minister understood that.


CANADA-UNITED STATES UNDERSTANDING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that the Government of Canada wants to deal reasonably, using normal procedures, with the Americans. Does he realize that the Americans have broken a clear understanding made last year? As part of the agreement to settle the East Coast dispute, it was agreed by the Americans and Canadians not to take any action in any other area which might come under dispute until that was resolved by the World Court in The Hague. The Americans have now blatantly broken that understanding, and the Prime Minister is idly sitting there, amused, saying we ought not to be concerned. Well, we are concerned. Why does he not speak up for Canadian interests?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the concern of the Hon. Member is at least several days late. This has been debated in this House. Almost a week ago I remember hearing the Minister of State for External Relations answering this question and referring indeed to the agreement we reached on the East Coast with the U.S. Administration. 1 am glad the Hon. Member and his Party are catching up to this fact. We have dealt with it already. We have dealt with it in Washington, and we are watching the situation.

[ Translation]


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who must be aware of the strong opposition of Quebecers to Bill S-31. The entire Province of Quebec has voiced its opposition to the introduction of such a Bill because it is basically aimed at hamstringing Quebec's Caisse de depot et placement and drastically restricting the economic field of operations of many millions, of hundreds of thousands of young French-speaking Quebecers. Recently, Liberal Party leadership candidate John Turner said he was in favour of such a Bill. Does the Government intend to bring

May 16, 1984
Oral Questions
that measure back before the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER GIVE DETAILS
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the negative impact of such a Bill on Quebec's Caisse de depot et placement as well as on 3 million Quebecers is well known. Considering that the Minister supports Mr. Turner in his bid for the leadership, could we know whether the subject of Bill S-31 was raised, because it is basically an anti-Quebec and anti-francophone Bill? I can assure her that if it is brought back, we will make known our strong opposition to the adoption of that Bill. Was there any reference to that Bill in her discussions with Mr. Turner? That is what we would like to know.


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I find the rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition absolutely appalling. Bill S-31 was in the interest of Canadians. It was not anti-Quebec. I would suggest to him that if he is to quote the men who are running for the leadership of the Liberal Party, he should follow these quotes more accurately. I believe that Mr. Turner said that the Bill was dead but the problem remained.


DEMAND FOR MINISTER'S OPINION
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the question of the Leader of the Official Opposition is quite relevant. Keeping in mind the fact that the official CPR spokesman, Mr. Turner, did say that he would consider re-introducing that Bill before the House if he were chosen to lead the Liberal Party of Canada, could the Minister tell us whether she has raised that issue with John Turner and, if so, what was the Minister's opinion?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I find it very amusing that Members of the Opposition are trying to breath some life into a dead issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More! More!


Judith A. Erola: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that these people are desperately seeking a cause and are searching far and wide to find an issue. This has been something of a backburner issue for some time. I suggest that they look at some of the issues
which are before Canadians and are of real interest to Canadians. I suggest that they fight the election on the real issues.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Pierre, get up and defend John Turner. [Translation]


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TAKE ACTION
Roch La Salle: Canadian voters are not stupid! Practically at the same time, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the spokesman for Canadian Pacific, Mr. Turner, both said that they intended to discuss again and re-introduce a measure similar to Bill S-31. Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to hear the Minister say in the House that the Government has no such intention. Would the Minister tell us whether she is prepared to silence both Mr. Turner and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with respect to a Bill which will not be brought back before the House?


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out to the Hon. Member that such a question has nothing to do with the Minister's responsibilities.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board in his capacity as a co-sponsor of Bill C-34 which was introduced yesterday. There is widespread skepticism with respect to the timing of the introduction of Bill C-34 in the dying weeks of this session, if not this Parliament. The Minister of Labour is absent today and cannot answer any questions with respect to that Bill. Both my Party and the Conservatives are prepared to hasten the passage of this Bill. Therefore, would the President of the Treasury Board give a commitment to the House that the Government will ensure that Bill C-34 will come on stream very quickly and will be passed in all stages in this session, or in this Parliament, before the end of June?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the support of my hon. friend for this very important initiative of the Liberal Government which is carrying out another commitment in the Throne Speech of last December. The Minister of Labour is not here today but I believe he went directly from the press conference after the tabling of the Bill yesterday to the Labour Committee, to answer questions about the Bill. I am sure he will be prepared to do the same in the House as the Bill is debated.
I have noticed an interesting coalition. My hon. friend is speaking for both his Party and the Conservatives. I am sure the House Leader has listened attentively to this pledge of support. I hope this pledge of support will be reflected by the
May 16, 1984

organization of House business in order that this important Liberal initiative will soon become law.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Government House Leader. Will he echo the answer of the President of the Treasury Board and give an undertaking today that Bill C-34 will pass all stages in this House and the other place before the end of June?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It will be helpful if the Opposition Parties help me to live up to that commitment. A very short debate would make it easier for us to dispose of this Bill. Any co-operation on any Bill on the Order Paper will be most welcome. They are all priorities. We are willing to negotiate any legislation in order to facilitate their adoption. This Bill is included in that. However, it is not only up to the Government to ensure the Bill passes through all stages. We need a lot of co-operation from the other side of the House, and I am expecting it.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Last year Ontario producers experienced a disruption of the traditional marketing of tomatoes to Quebec due to the raising of the four litre basket issue by Quebec. As a result of passage of Privy Council Order 2795 in 1983, the bookkeeping has been done at the federal level. Could he give assurances to the producers of Ontario that Quebec does not intend to raise that issue again this year? If he cannot give that assurance, will he undertake to enter into negotiations with his contemporaries in Quebec immediately to assure that we will have no such problem this year?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the Member is correct in his assumption that all the regulations have been passed according to the rules and laws by which we must abide. All the other provinces are accepting this. Last year the Province of Quebec made objections because it felt the regulations had not been properly passed. If Quebec does not adhere to the regulations this year, I am told it will be contravening interprovincial trade. We are making that kind of representation. Our officials tell me that officials in Quebec are in agreement but they have to get approval of their Minister, and are following that up today.
Oral Questions


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice who, I assume, is away on his leadership campaign, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Justice who, I believe, is the Solicitor General. Has the Privacy Commissioner, Mr. John Grace, who is a servant of this House and not of the Government, been giving legal or procedural advice to the Government or to Departments on how to refuse the release of records and information to citizens?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly answer for my own relationship with him that I am not aware of any circumstances in which he has given advice to my Ministry. I will take the question as notice for my colleague. Let me remind the Hon. Member of the opportunity available, when the report of the Commissioner is dealt with, for Members of the House to put questions directly to the official concerned. May I remind the Hon. Member also of the support the Opposition gave for the process whereby this report is made directly to Parliament so that a Minister will not be answerable for the Commissioner in circumstances like those about which the Hon. Member has just posed his question.


AUTHORITY FOR TENDERING ADVICE TO DEPARTMENTS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. When Members of the House passed that weakened, watered down government Bill, they expected that the Privacy Commissioner was to be on the side of the citizen, not of the Government.
The very serious allegation has been made in the national press today that the Department of Immigration, for one, has been the recipient of legal and procedural advice from the Privacy Commissioner which has allowed that particular Department to turn down legitimate requests for records or documentation. My question to the Minister, who has been the beneficiary of this alleged advice, is simply: under what statutory authority would the Privacy Commissioner be able to give to him or to his departmental officials such procedural or legal advice?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's question is not at all clear to me. If he could be more specific, I would be happy to try to provide him with the information he is seeking.


PRIVACY COMMISSIONER'S POWERS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, the allegation has been made today in the national press that a person now resident in Canada has had his request

May 16, 1984
Oral Questions
turned down for information or documentation from the Department of Immigration, and the Department of Immigration has had to be led, hand in hand, by the Privacy Commissioner on how to turn down that request. My question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. What statutory authority has the Privacy Commissioner, Mr. John Grace, who is a servant of this House, not of the Government, to give the Minister of Immigration, or his civil servants, that type of procedural or legal advice?


John (Moody) Roberts: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should address his inquiry to the Privacy Commissioner.


Mr. McCuish:: And you want to be leader?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. It is further to a question asked in the House by my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Peterborough and the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills, regarding the possible loss of Dash-8 sales to three Canadian domestic airlines. The report that was leaked to a reporter for The Globe and Mail some weeks ago made reference to a program administered by his Department, which would provide financial support in the sale of Dash-8 aircraft to domestic airlines. Would the Minister outline to the House what the status is of that program, and explain why the program is not being used now to help these three airlines which are very close to purchasing competing aircraft from foreign suppliers?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the question asked by the Hon. Member's colleagues that he alluded to in his question. We are looking at the possibility of putting in place a financing program for the sale of a Dash-8, maybe similar to the Enterprise Development Program we put forward for the sale of the Dash-7 for North American sales.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister must know that these sales are very close to being made to competing airlines from other countries. Surely he understands that there could not be a more important time in the life of de Havilland, when 300 workers are being laid off and people are asking many questions about the future of the aircraft company.


APPLICATION OF PROPOSED PROGRAM
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, why is the Government prepared to commit these moneys on paper yet it is not prepared to follow through with its actions
now to save those jobs, and to save the company at the most critical point in its history?


Edward C. Lumley: First, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see the conversion of the Hon. Member to supporting de Havilland and the Dash-8 aircraft. That is very welcome on this side, and I am sure is welcomed by all employees of de Havilland.
With respect to something that was allegedly done on paper, Mr. Speaker, I have never seen the paper to which the Hon. Member refers, but I will make sure he is one of the first to know, if and when we decide to put a financing program forward.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. The Yukon Territorial Government owed the Teslin Indian Band some $100,000 for land which the Band surrendered to the Government in 1981, but $76,000 of that money was turned over to Revenue Canada, which had issued a garnishee order against the Teslin Slashing Company.
Considering that the Teslin Slashing Company is owned by individual band members, not by the Indian Band itself, and considering that the Yukon territorial Government now admits its mistake in helping Revenue Canada seize this money, will the Minister explain what grounds his Department had for seizing this money from the Teslin Indian Band? Will he order immediate restitution of this money wrongfully taken from a group of people with very slender financial resources and suffering 75 per cent unemployment?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, in his question the Hon. Member said that the Yukon Government had erred. I imagine that if the situation was not particularly clear to the Yukon Government, it might not be clear either to the Department of National Revenue. However, 1 shall certainly review the facts and shall then be in a position to explain the Department's position to the Hon. Member.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answer and for promising to look into this matter.


SUPREME COURT DECISION
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, in January, 1983, the Supreme Court ruled in the Nowegijick case that income paid by an employer situated on an Indian reserve was exempt from taxation. Since the head office of the Teslin Slashing Company is located on the
May 16, 1984

reserve, does the Minister agree that the Supreme Court decision should apply in that case, and will he instruct his Department to make sure that the decision of the Supreme Court will be followed in all cases so that Indian Bands and Indian companies are not further harassed?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to assure the Hon. Member that we in the Department of National Revenue applied the decision of the Supreme Court in the Nowegijick case for all Indians working for companies which have their head offices on reserves, since that decision came down.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister of Fisheries, in co-operation with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has proudly announced a new fishing agreement with the U.S.S.R. under which the Russians will purchase $12 million worth of our fish products while they are permitted to catch an estimated $50 million worth of groundfish off the Newfoundland coast.
Fish processors in Newfoundland, and the Newfoundland Government, as a result of this agreement, are now protesting that the oriental market for their products will be seriously undermined, causing further unemployment. Why did the Minister take this action without consultation with the Government of Newfoundland, and without consultation with the fishing industry, when it is not in the interests of the people of Newfoundland and the fishermen of that province?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the Hon. Member has asked this question. During the negotiations with the U.S.S.R., the industry and the various provincial Governments, particularly the Government of Newfoundland, were constantly aware of the substance of the negotiations. I am happy to report to the Hon. Member that during the entire negotiations the representatives of the Government of Newfoundland never expressed any objection whatsoever to the negotiations.
The Hon. Member for St. John's West has a drydock in his riding, and the U.S.S.R. has been boycotting his shipyard. At the moment we signed the agreement, the U.S.S.R. Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Kamentsev, told me that he would give immediate instructions that U.S.S.R. vessels be repaired and maintained at that St. John's shipyard. After seeing the encouragement of the Hon. Member for St. John's West, I realize he is on my side.
Oral Questions


NETTING OF CAPELIN-EFFECT ON COD AND HADDOCK CATCHES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's statement in response to my question is just about 360 degrees off when compared with the telegram I have in my possession from fishermen of Newfoundland.
In view of the fact that a small mesh net will have to be placed inside the cod end of the Soviet nets in order to catch capelin, how many tonnes of cod or haddock, which follow the capelin, will be caught as incidental catches over and above the 100,200 tonnes of silver hake, capelin, round-nosed grenadiers and argentines which he is permitting the Soviets to catch?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, because the Hon. Member has difficulty believing what I tell him, I should like to re-emphasize that during the entire negotiations the Government of Newfoundland had an official present. I am as surprised as, and perhaps even more so than, the Hon. Member. If the Government of Newfoundland has the slightest objection, why did its officials never bother to express it to my officials or me?
As for the species allocated to the U.S.S.R., they are strictly resources which are surplus to Canadian needs. This means that Canadian fishermen are not interested in catching these species.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It relates to the discussions with pharmaceutical companies that want a certain period of licensing for drugs in order to recover costs, and to the generic companies that are trying to put drugs on the market at costs less than those of the pharmaceutical companies.
The Minister will be aware that in recent days an agreement has been worked out in the United States whereby a modus operandi can be established. In view of the fact that the Minister has established a task force, and in view of that agreement in the United States, is the Minister considering that we should move more quickly so that we might not only develop research and development in pharmaceuticals in Canada but also manufacture them?


Judith A. Erola: No, Mr. Speaker. I should like to correct a statement which was made by the Hon. Member. It is not a task force. It is a commission of inquiry headed by Dr. Eastman. I am sure the situation in the United States is one which he will observe very carefully and report on decisions and recommendations.

Oral Questions


COMMISSION OF INQUIRY-LENGTH OF PROCEEDINGS
[Stage Direction]
May 16, 1984
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. She is aware that various attempts have been made in Canada to develop a pharmaceutical industry beyond what we now have, and to try to recover not only jobs but some of the costs which are obviously involved in the health care field. It is an area in which we can in fact create jobs.
In view of the fact that this matter is evolving very quickly, could the Minister instruct that the time period of this inquiry be shortened so that, once again, Canadians do not find out that much of the industry and much of the investment have already gone by the time the decision has been made?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, these interests were balanced very carefully when it was decided that we would indeed have a commission of inquiry. For that very reason the commission of inquiry will take only six months. We hope that six-month period will be sufficient to provide us with the information required to give us the correct course to follow, one which will provide for increased research and development and one which will provide Canadians with the proper consumer protection they expect.

one system the statistics show that it is safer. At the present time agriculture is 87 per cent metric.


Mr. Mazankowski:: It is obvious the Minister of Agriculture is out of touch. I think he needs to go back to the land.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR DUAL MEASUREMENT LABELLING SYSTEM
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would she take this matter under advisement and remove the discrimination which exists for farmers, particularly in view of the dangers and the costly mistakes as a result of the confusion arising from metric labelling only, and given the fact that most machinery and equipment are gauged in the imperial system? Would the Minister look at my motion No. 99, which calls for the application of dual labelling of fertilizers and chemicals purchased by food producers?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I leave that matter in the capable hands of the Minister of Agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


METRIC CONVERSION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. He will be aware that his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, recently announced that grocery stores will be able to use both metric and imperial units in their advertising as a matter of public convenience. Will the Minister prevail upon his colleague to permit dual labelling of agricultural fertilizers and chemicals as a safety precaution to avoid costly mistakes? Would the Minister consider doing that on behalf of Canadian farmers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member intimates by his question that there have been a lot of mistakes as a result of the use of metric. There have not been any more mistakes with metric than there had been with the old imperial system.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: They make a lot of noise, but the record shows that there have not been any more mistakes. There were mistakes with improper use, especially before commercial operators were licensed to apply the product by the provinces. When they are using that as an excuse, it is to change the labelling or to have it in both. According to the surveys, it would be more confusing to have dual labelling. For example, a different operator of a machine on the next day may have to go from metric to imperial and make a mistake, whereas if it is


THE ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, whom I will not abandon as he goes out with the tide.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: The 1984 report of the prestigious European Management Forum on International Competitiveness indicates that Canada ranks twenty-second of the 22 principal industrial countries in receptiveness to investment capital from abroad. Our country desperately needs all the investment capital we can get to help us expand our economy and to provide the jobs which our people need. In view of those facts, why do the Prime Minister and his Government persist in making it more difficult than in any of the 22 other industrial countries for investment capital to come to this country and help us to do the job that so desperately needs to be done today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite hear what authority the Hon. Member was quoting.


George Harris Hees: I will repeat it.



May 16, 1984


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Before he repeats it, Mr. Speaker, I want to say it's baloney.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my authority is the 1984 report of the European Management Forum on International Competitiveness. It has been quoted many times in this House. It is a well-known economic study group.


EFFECT OF FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I will ask a supplementary. Does the Prime Minister not realize that billions of dollars of potential investment capital have been driven away from this country by the unbelievable delays and bureaucratic bungling of the Foreign Investment Review Agency which he and his Government announced with such fanfare and praise just a short time ago? When is he going to get together with his Government and do something about that which is stopping badly needed investment capital coming to this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No matter how you slice it, Mr. Speaker, it is still baloney.


George Harris Hees: The unemployed people of Canada will be interested to hear what the Prime Minister has to say about this very important matter.


PETITION
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer) on Tuesday, May 15, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Subsection 33(2) of the Telesat Canada Act, I would like to table two copies of letters patent in both official languages amending the objects and powers of Telesat Canada to permit the company to supply satellite telecommunication systems, including elements thereof, and to provide services associated with the development, implementation and operation of satellite telecommunication systems in Canada or elsewhere.
Time Allocation PETITION


MR. PETERSON-TREATMENT OF SYRIAN JEWS
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 5,000 Canadians which deals with the grievous situation with respect to Syrian Jews. They have continued to be repressed, ghettoized, beaten, brutalized and murdered. I file this petition before the House today praying that Governments, and our Government, will ask the Syrian Government to adhere to traditional humanitarian principles. We can no longer remain silent.


Mr. Speaker:: First reading of Senate Public Bills. Government Notices of Motions. Motions.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could put the motion standing in my name.


Mr. Speaker:: Government Notices of Motions. The President of the Treasury Board.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard):
That, in relation to Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, one additional sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business on that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of that stage shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
If I still have the floor, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some introductory remarks. Day after day-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is all very interesting, but you called Government Notices of Motions. I believe this is not a Government Notice of Motion. If you go down the order in the proper way and recognize Members on motions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I called Government Notices of Motions and then I called Motions. I did not know exactly at which point the President of the Treasury Board was rising. He is clearly rising under Motions.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was very clear to you at the time, Mr. Speaker, as it was very clear to me, that the Minister was improperly rising under Government Notices of Motions. This motion-

May 16, 1984
Time Allocation


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The matter can be resolved. The Chair will now call Motions and recognize the President of the Treasury Board.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the President of the Privy Council:
That, in relation to Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The President of the Treasury Board has been recognized under Motions.


Henry Perrin Beatty: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the point of order?


Henry Perrin Beatty: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I sent you a note prior to the end of Question Period indicating an interest in moving concurrence in the fourth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. In addition, my notice of motion has been on the Order Paper for several days, unlike the Minister's, which was simply given orally yesterday. You knew it was my intention to call for concurrence on that. What the Minister attempted to do in getting up at the wrong time was to seize the floor and pre-empt the ability of other Hon. Members to exercise their right to move motions such as a motion of concurrence.
If the Minister is rewarded for that improper behaviour by being called now when he was not rising at the correct time, and when I gave you notice in writing of my intention to move concurrence in the fourth report, it will encourage such improper behaviour by Ministers in the future. Surely when an Hon. Member had written notice on the Order Paper for several days and sent you a note indicating it was his intention to move concurrence, and when the Minister rose improperly at the wrong time, priority should be given to the Hon. Member who had the motion on the Order Paper for some time. The Minister should not be rewarded for such improper action.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is happy to have this opportunity to make a couple of observations. First, in the course of trying to preside over Question Period, I received in excess of 20 notes from Hon. Members. May I suggest that this has become something of an abuse. Hon. Members who want to be recognized send notes to the Chair, as well as those who want appointments afterwards. The Chair can only cope with a certain number of communications and still do a job in the Chair in presiding.
Notice was sent by the Hon. Member in writing just a few minutes before the end of Question Period. The Chair will ask Hon. Members, just as a matter of principle, whether there could be some relief from this. It is very difficult to do justice to all the communications sent to the Chair by messenger during the course of Question Period.
With regard to the other point raised by the Hon. Member, I quote from Bourinot's Fourth Edition "Precedents in Debate", which is quite clear:
It is usual, however, to allow priority to Members of the administration who wish to speak.
That has been an established principle. It was repeated by my predecessor Madam Sauve. I can get some citations on that point; I have not had much opportunity to do research on the point. It is the understanding of the Chair that when two Members rise and one is a Member of the administration and the Government and the other a Member of the House, there is a priority given in the moving of motions to the representative of the administration and the Government.
As far as the Chair is aware, that has been the established practice of the House for some considerable time and it has also been the established practice at Westminster. In the circumstances, the Chair recognizes the President of the Treasury Board.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the floor-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the President of the Treasury Board. The Chair will then recognize the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to make the point that I appreciate very much the discussion with respect to whether or not a Government Member should be recognized for debate as opposed to a motion. In the situation here, there was a notice of intention to move the motion on the Order Paper. That is a completely new and novel point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is attempting to reflect upon a decision of the Chair. The Chair's decision is clear. Members are recognized and the Chair cannot always read a Member's mind about what he will do when recognized. In this case, Government Notices of Motions were called and then Motions were called. There was some confusion. The Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe said that it was improper and the Chair then called Motions and recognized the President of the Treasury Board.
In accordance with established practices, when the Chair is to make a choice between a representative of the administration and the Government and another Member of the House, it is clear from Bourinot and from parliamentary practice that the precedence goes to the representative of the administration who seeks to be recognized. That is the practice of Parliament and I am a servant of Parliament.
May 16, 1984

The Hon. Member cannot say that there is a difference between being recognized for debate and being recognized for motions. The Chair was not recognizing anyone for debate at that point. Clearly Motions were called. The Hon. President of the Treasury Board.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the President of the Privy Council:
That, in relation to Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, one additional sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of that stage shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Gray, seconded by Mr. Pinard, moves- Shall I dispense?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall read the motion:
That, in relation to Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, one additional sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of that stage shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? The Hon. President of the Treasury Board.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, day after day, members of the Official Opposition, during Question Period, on public platforms and during other parliamentary proceedings, have called for a better framework for the control of federal Crown corporations. When we gave them in the House the opportunity to help create such a framework, what was their response? Their response was exemplified by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) who moved an amendment to delay debate on second reading-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, since we are becoming so accustomed to a precise reading of the rules, I know that there is a rule that you will enforce, Mr. Speaker, which indicates that Members of Parliament and particularly members of the administration are not supposed to read speeches in the House.


Mr. Evans:: Absolutely incorrect.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Absolutely incorrect is right.
Time Allocation


John Leslie Evans: If you read your rules, you would find you are
wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. There is nothing that says that the Minister is not allowed to read extracts. As the Minister has just begun his remarks, I have no idea whether he is reading an extract or reading a speech. I must allow the Minister to continue.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly continue the usual practice of drawing upon my notes from time to time, particularly in the manner normally used by members of the administration, no matter what Party seems to be in power.
If I may continue, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for St. John's West moved an amendment to delay debate on second reading of Bill C-24 for six months; in other words, to give it what is commonly known as a six months' hoist. This obstructive step, if it succeeds, will misuse the time of Members who are truly concerned about the important issues treated in this Bill.
I say that the Hon. Member's proposed amendment is just as much a six months' hoist of the best interests of the people of Canada as it is a six months' hoist of Bill C-24. No sound reason can be given by Hon. Members opposite for such a delay of proceedings and therefore the Government feels it must ask the House, pursuant to the rules of the House, to allocate an appropriate time frame within which we may complete debate on second reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the debate in the House on this important Bill, which is aimed at improving the framework for control and accountability of our Crown Corporations, has already taken up seven days or twenty-one and a half hours of debate. Hon. Members know perfectly well that at second reading, the purpose of debate is to discuss the principles of the Bill, not to make a detailed study of each clause. We have certainly had ample time to discuss the principles in question.

Eighty-five different Members have had the opportunity to speak in the House. The Progressive Conservative Party has put forth 66 different speakers and 14 members of the New Democratic Party have risen to speak on Bill C-24 as well as five Liberal members.
I think all Hon. Members will agree that a reform of the accountability and control framework of our Crown corporations is important for Canadians who want this improved framework to be in place very soon. Realistically, that could only be done if the business at hand progresses to its next stage which is a detailed study by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. Only in this way can the detailed questions and concerns expressed about this Bill be answered and resolved. Not to allow this to be done is a distortion of the British and Canadian parliamentary tradition, which is that a measure should be discussed, and after a reasonable period of time for discussion, the elected repre-

May 16, 1984
Time Allocation
sentatives of the people should be allowed to make a final decision about that measure.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we are not asking for a final decision on the Bill but only on its principles. In the Mother of Parliaments, the Parliament of Great Britain, the rules provide that even for the most important Bills, second reading must be completed within only one or two days. We have already had some seven days of debate on this Bill.
I believe this Bill must move forward to committee for a number of reasons.

First, I feel that after seven long days of debate, a general consensus has gradually emerged on the main principles of the Bill, as well as an understanding and acceptance of its essential strategic elements. Strong arguments in favour of amending certain provisions have nevertheless been raised, and they have been carefully noted.

As a result of many of these arguments, the Government is looking at possible amendments to the legislation. Of course, some of the arguments represent a different point of view or demonstrate what appears to be a misunderstanding of some of the provisions of the Bill. However, Mr. Speaker, the appropriate forum to discuss these differences in detail is the committee and we are anxious to see this happen. The only place where possible changes to the Bill could be considered is in committee, and to get the Bill to committee the House must make a decision on this second reading stage.
Second, Mr. Speaker, during the debate so far, opposition members have complained that they have not yet seen the regulations which the Government intends to make under the authority of the legislation if it is adopted by Parliament. However, the Government is fully prepared to table a comprehensive package of draft regulations with the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee at the very beginning of its consideration of the Bill. This will allow for careful scrutiny of the regulations and for their open discussion and debate.
Third, I believe it is clear that the Canadian people want the expeditious passage by Parliament of this Bill to better control our Crown corporations. It is a Bill which, by the conclusion of debate, will be the product of the best attention and consideration of all interested Members, and especially of those who share a deep concern for the continued vital contribution of Crown corporations to Canadian society and the Canadian economy.
The requirements for this Bill, its general provisions and approach, and the proposed mechanisms for achieving the desired ends of both better control and accountability, have found favour with many including the Auditor General and, I am told, the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation. That foundation has expressed an initial positive response to its members with respect to the audit provisions of the Bill.
In addition, there has also been much favourable comment by editorial writers. For example, Harold Shea wrote in The Chronicle-Herald of Halifax on March 20:
It will be a major disappointment to Canadian taxpayers if, as an Ottawa projection suggests, a Bill to bring greater accountability into the operations of the Crown corporations dies on the vine without parliamentary approval this session. There is really no justification for delaying the measure's debate.
He went on to say:
It would be a pity if the program to make the Crown corporations more responsive to public requests for operational detail were to be put aside and abandoned until a later time-
Those very important words were written by the key editorial writer of a newspaper which is not known for its support of proposals of this Government.
I believe that Mr. Shea is right. He makes an important point when writing about this Bill. The need to put a new and better regime in place to ensure greater control and accountability of our Crown corporations is a priority of this Government. The Official Opposition has also stated that it is one of its own priorities. It is an issue which has been studied for years by governments internally, by the Lambert Commission, by the Auditor General, by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and by the Opposition itself. There is no doubt that a new law is needed. Resolution of the issue is, I would submit, of considerable importance to this country.
In conclusion, I would like to say that this is a House of debate, but above all, it is a place for decision. I think that it is time to make a decision on the principles of this Bill and to conclude second reading so that the Bill may come under detailed study in committee. I believe this is what Canadian people expect of us and I therefore ask the House to support this motion.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to bring to your attention the question raised by the Opposition House Leader during the presentation of the Minister that the Minister was reading a speech and that that was not allowed. Mr. Speaker, you did not make a ruling and I would like to refer Your Honour to Citation 310 in Beau-chesne which reads:
Tradition has established exceptions to this principle, and these have been recognized by the Speaker from time to time. Ministers of the Crown, Leaders of Opposition Parties (and those speaking on their behalf), a Member speaking in a language that is not his own, and a Member making his maiden speech or using technical data or statistics are allowed a written text. In addition-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. It had been my intention at this moment to read that citation. I appreciate the clarification. So that there is no doubt, when I spoke originally I had no doubt in my mind; I was intending to read exactly that paragraph.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: On a separate point of order?
May 16, 1984


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, it is on the same point. I would like to say that we would hope that from now on the Official Opposition House Leader would read his rule book-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That is not a point of order. One cannot anticipate. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans) waited until I was outside the Chamber before he responded to the point raised. If in fact there is to be a ruling on this, I think we should not waste time and ensure that we get on with the business of the House. If you would like to have a full debate now and representations made, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to make representations on that point. But I would-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I do not see that there is any necessity for debate. When the point was raised originally, I made a remark which allowed the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) to continue. I had no concern whatsoever about what he was doing. It was my intention to produce, as I have done, the relevant paragraph to correct what I said initially. As far as I am concerned the matter is closed. It is quite clear.
For continuing debate, the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty).


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, Members on this side of the House have historically rejected attempts to gag Parliament and we reject this attempt to gag Parliament today. The motion which has been moved by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) is totally intolerable.
Since 1972 the Government has talked about the need for improved controls on Crown corporations. Indeed, when the Government of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) was in office, within seven months of coming to office it had tabled Bill C-27. That Bill would have created a new omnibus Crown corporations control Bill, brought Crown corporations under some control and allowed Parliament again to exercise authority over the tremendous number of Crown corporations. That Bill died on the Order Paper with the defeat of the Progressive Conservative Government. Since that time over four years have elapsed and the Government has done nothing to bring in controls on the scale that were envisaged in Bill C-27.
Suddenly, after dawdling and after a succession of scandals-including the scandals of Canadair and de Havilland most recently which indicated massive overruns which will cost the public treasury enormously-the Government has discovered an urgency for this legislation which is totally inadequate. It is dangerous legislation. It did not see the need to rush at all before. The Minister himself, for example, urged that the Government continue to pour tens of millions of
Time Allocation
dollars into Consolidated Computer Limited, and we have the correspondence between the Minister in his previous incarnation and his predecessor as President of the Treasury Board urging that more money be poured in; more good money after bad. He saw no urgency for controls over public investment then. Suddenly there is an urgency and this Bill has to be given priority over all other legislation before the House today. Suddenly it is essential that this dangerous Bill be passed prior to an election.
Members on both sides of the House are entitled to ask themselves: "Why did the Government suddenly discover such urgency in a Bill which they felt was not particularly important before?" I can cite two possible reasons. First, the Government indicates that it is determined to get Bill C-25, the CDIC Bill, through the House. The Government knows full well that that dangerous measure to create that Crown corporation tinker toy which will provide intervention for Jack Austin, Maurice Strong and Joel Bell, will be strongly opposed. It will be strongly opposed by Members on this side of the House and it will be strongly opposed by any Canadian who believes that there must be proper control over government intervention, who believes that the old NEP gang are not the people to promote that sort of proper control.
The Minister knows, and I invite the House to keep its attention to this point, that simply by deleting Clause 19 of this Bill when it goes before committee, the Government will have no need to pass Bill C-25. In fact, CDIC will have all the authorization it requires to continue to receive appropriations directly from Parliament.
The problem at the present time is the previous Speaker's ruling which indicated that the Government could not use Appropriation Acts to finance programs which had not been approved by Parliament. As a consequence, the Government was not able to put money directly into CDIC with the exception of half a million dollars which was extended under the Financial Administration Act. It was forced to rely upon subterfuges. In one instance it was forced to bleed money, $10 million, from Eldorado. That money did not properly belong to CDIC. It belonged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It was taken improperly and, I believe, illegally by CDIC. It was the desire of the Government to eliminate that obstacle and make sure that it could put money directly into the Canada Development Investment Corporation for Joel Bell and Maurice Strong to spend as they saw fit with virtually no parliamentary control whatsoever. That is why it is proposing the legislation. The Government has found a new way to eliminate the need to have a special Act for CDIC. All that it need do is force this Bill through the House and through committee, to delete Clause 19, and it has CDIC.
The second reason is that the Minister's friend, Dr. Ed Clark, is building a Crown corporation empire in the Treasury Board secretariat. From a relatively lean operation, he is reassembling the old NEP gang who are responsible for destroying the energy industry in Canada to deal with Crown corporations. Dr. Clark is in the process of asking for something close to 50 person-years to develop this establishment

May 16, 1984
Time Allocation
within the Treasury Board. That sort of empire created for the edification of one bureaucrat, is simply not acceptable to Members on this side of the House. The sort of framework which is being put in place to justify the building of an empire by Dr. Clark is totally unacceptable to Members on this side of the House.
In addition to the person-years which he has asked for, he is also hiring $1,000 a day consultants. How can the Government seriously talk about the need for financial control when it allows its friend, Dr. Clark, to spend public funds in this way? If the Minister is serious about exercising control on spending and government activities, surely a good place to start would be in Dr. Clark's shop itself by indicating to Ed Clark that this sort of empire building at public expense must stop.
If this Bill is forced through, its first effect will be, notwithstanding the statements that were made by the Minister, that we will probably never again see in the House a special Act of incorporation for a Crown corporation. This Bill will allow the Government to do without those special Acts in the future and will formalize a procedure whereby the Government need not come back to seek parliamentary approval for legislation to create new Crown corporations.
This Bill would limit the ability of parliamentary committees to do their job. How extraordinary it is that any Minister of the Crown would expect Members of Parliament from any Party to accept a provision in legislation which explicitly states that after this Bill is passed a parliamentary committee would have no right to move concurrence in its report on a government Order in Council. How shocking it is that this provision was dreamed up and that the Government is attempting to sneak it through Parliament. The low regard that the Government has for Parliament is appalling.
It is equally shocking that this Bill seeks to exclude Orders in Council relating to these Crown corporations from the scrutiny of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. One of the responsibilities of that Committee is to look at the vires and legality of government Orders in Council, yet the Committee will be prevented from doing that because the Minister, in the name of improving accountability, wants to prevent Parliament from acting in that way.
I want to ask the Minister if he deliberately proposed legislation to Parliament that would have the effect, within 60 days of passage, of requiring the winding up of the Bank of Canada, the Canadian Wheat Board and the International Development Research Centre? That is exactly what this Bill does. Is it his intention to do that through the back door by this sort of measure, or is it a matter of extreme sloppiness on his part and that of his officials who drafted a Bill, the consequences of which they were not even knowledgeable? One of my colleagues will deal with this issue at greater length during the debate.
In light of the great national controversy over the comments by the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) about the possibility of asking Governor Bouey of the Bank of Canada to take his leave, I find it incredible that the Minister would be so sloppy as to allow a Bill to be put before Parliament which would have the effect of winding up the Bank of Canada within 60 days of the Bill's passage. How grossly incompetent.
The Minister is probably prepared to make approximately 30 amendments to the Bill when it is before committee. He will no doubt cite this as a sign that he is prepared to co-operate with Members of Parliament in improving the Bill. More properly, this should be seen as a confession on the part of the Minister that the Bill is so sloppily and improperly worded that he has not done his homework. He should admit that he is asking Parliament to give approval at second reading stage for legislation that is grossly inadequate and should never have been brought before the House of Commons.
The Minister says that this legislation has met with the support of the Auditor General. Again, I find disgraceful the Minister's behaviour in using the Auditor General the way he did, by taking advantage of private correspondence sent to him by the Auditor General to claim his support. The Auditor General, just as Members of the House, did not have an opportunity to see the regulations we are talking about.
We are faced with legislation that undercuts Parliament and reduces our ability to do our job on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada. Far from improving accountability, it destroys and denies accountability. It is a bad Bill which will be strongly opposed by Members on this side of the House. Certainly time allocation, which is designed to gag Parliament and undermine its ability to hold the Government to account on this Bill, will be strongly opposed by every Member on this side of the House.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in my response to the closure motion I want to indicate our reasons for our opposition to it. Since there is no doubt that the objectives of this Bill are valid, we believe there should be some discussion about the requirements of accountability over Crown corporations. There is no question that this Bill would be an improvement to the accountability process of these Crown corporations. However, the fundamental question we are considering with respect to this Bill is the definition of accountability, which is the principle that needs to be debated and studied very closely.
What is the meaning of accountability in Crown corporations, or in government for that matter? Parliamentary accountability means being accountable to the House of Commons. The primary responsibility in the House of Commons is to be accountable for the expenditure of taxpayers' money. This view, which is shared by the Auditor General, means that Parliament should vote on all of the expenditure of taxpayers' money. He has also said that this Bill is an improvement in the accountability for taxpayers' money. I will expand on that opinion in a few minutes.
Accountability also means the responsibility of a Crown corporation to fulfil its mandate. In this respect the Bill is
May 16, 1984

totally lacking. It does nothing to allow Parliament the authority to hold a Crown corporation accountable.
The accountability of a Crown corporation should include all public money that it spends and not only that which was approved by Parliament. There should also be accountability when a Crown corporation spends money for which Parliament may become responsible.
In the case of Canadair, we know that a lot of money was spent and the corporation went into severe debt. Although this happened through the back door, Parliament became responsible for that money. Canadair was given letters of comfort and had the authority to borrow money without parliamentary approval. This circumstance has not been dealt with in this Bill and therefore has not addressed accountability in that sense.
As the previous speaker indicated, we also know that the Government has suddenly become very concerned about this Bill because it is operating a full-fledged holding company illegally. CDIC is a corporation that has been operating illegally for almost a year. That holding company gives control and responsibility for a number of Crown corporations to one person or group.
One would think that, in an effort to introduce an accountability Bill in the House of Commons the Government would use the best possible model in its new holding company to show that it has the political will to control and be accountable for these corporations. Instead, the Senator from the other place comes before us and asks for the money to pay off the debts of Canadair and to be entrusted to use the money well. That is not accountability. That requires trust, which this Government has not built up in this House or in the country. I do not think that by its example this Government has developed the kind of confidence that we as Members of the House of Commons, as representatives of the people of Canada, can use in order to allow this Bill to go through without obstruction.
Before this Bill is passed, Mr. Speaker, all these accountability factors should be looked at very thoroughly. When the Auditor General said he thought the Parliament of Canada should be accountable for all taxpayers' money, he could have extended that, and possibly he did, beyond the money given to Crown corporations. Yesterday in this House the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) brought up a further area of accountability which I think needs to be looked at as well. We talk about accountability, so what about the money given to large corporations by the Government as tax breaks? Maybe we should look at accountability for that money.
Perhaps the Minister, who is present today, should add to his area of concern beyond the accountability of Crown corporations. We give out a lot of money in the form of grants to large corporations. How are they accountable? Why do we not require them to be accountable for the money in the same way we require accountability from our Crown corporations? I think we need a much more solid Act which will do what it is supposed to do rather than just touch the fringes. We need to
Time Allocation
extend accountability to every cent of taxpayers' money which is spent in any way.
I know that accountability, even within government departments, needs some looking at. What we really need to do is establish the type of economic planning which uses the money we take from the taxpayer and uses it well, not only in Crown corporations but in departments and in the assistance we give to large corporations. That is the kind of accountability we need to look at, Mr. Speaker. I agree we should take a lot more time to establish government accountability, and forcing this Bill through by closure is not the way we are going to do it.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to say a few words this afternoon on this motion under Standing Order 82 finally to draw to a close the debate on Bill C-24 which has been before the House for many weeks now. When we think that the British House of Commons passed in two days the legislation allowing the U.K. to join the European Common Market, and the fact that we spent six days on this Bill at second reading when the vast majority of the work on the Bill is really going to have to be done in committee, it just seems ridiculous that we go on day after day debating a Bill where all the major topics have been covered. I think 21.5 hours have been spent on this Bill and 85 Members have spoken; five from this side, 14 from the NDP and 66 from the Official Opposition. It just seems unbelievable that anything new or constructive can be put forward on this Bill at this stage. Therefore, it seems wise to move on to the completion of second reading, allowing one more day for consideration and debate, ultimately bringing the debate to a close and making a decision.
Clearly this is the place for debate. That is what it is all about. But after a reasomable period of time, surely there is need for a decision to be made. I thought we would have had a vote on Monday afternoon, but when you get a six-month hoist motion introduced after some 50 or 60 Members have spoken, it is clear that the Opposition do not want to debate the Bill, they want to obstruct it and block it. They want to prevent its passage and they will use any technique whatsoever to do that.
It is interesting to look back in Hansard for December 9, 1982, where we see that the then Leader of the Opposition, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), brought in a motion urging the House to get on with this Bill. The motion reads;
That this House condemns the Government for its deliberate proliferation of Crown corporations accountable to the Government rather than Parliament and the taxpayers who, in the words of the Auditor General, "have every right to consider themselves the principal shareholders of these corporations", and instructs the Government to immediately introduce a Bill substantially the same as Bill C-27 in the 31st Parliament so as to make such corporations properly accountable to the people.
This is what we have done, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, this Bill is much stronger in many respects than Bill C-27. Now, almost a year and a half after this motion was put before the House, what do we see? Continual verbiage on this Bill with no decision being made.

May 16, 1984
Time Allocation
On December 9, 1982, the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) said this in the debate:
We have the statutory model already. It was mentioned in the motion introduced by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
He is talking about Bill C-27 introduced by the former Clark Government. He continued:
When he was Prime Minister he introduced Bill C-27, so we could start immediately to resolve the problem.
Where is the immediacy today, Mr. Speaker? All we hear is speech after speech, 88 speeches on second reading. He continued:
We could start with the enactment of the statutory provisions contained in Bill C-27, and we could start immediately on a parliamentary review of existing Crown corporations.
You will note that the motion introduced on December 9, 1982, talks a lot about the Auditor General. I will quote the Auditor General from an interview on March 16, at the time this Bill was introduced. The reporter was putting questions to him:
Are you confident that this new legislation will correct the problem?
He is referring to the lack of accountability of Crown Corporations. The Auditor General replied:
Well, it goes a long way to correcting it. I'm sure that any set of legislation can be improved upon but, basically, this does address all the questions or the majority of the questions that we were raising in our chapter two, two years ago.
He is referring to the Auditor General's report two years previously. The reporter then asked:
So we don't really know what these guys are up to. That's the real problem.
The Auditor General said that we will improve parliamentary control, Government control, board of directors control and so on. Therefore I think we can be assured that the Bill we have before us has had extensive consultation with many groups, including the recommendations of the parliamentary committee, the Lambert Commission and the Auditor General, and it does many of these things.
In discussions we have had with opposition members, we have made it clear that if they bring forward worth-while and constructive recommendations, suggestions or amendments at the committee stage, the Government is willing to consider and implement them if they will strengthen and improve the Bill. We cannot do that on second reading. We are hearing demands to discuss amendments at second reading and to see the regulations drawn to the Bill. That is work for the committee stage. We want to do that in committee stage. We want to go into great detail with the various groups and individuals who will be called before the committee to give testimony and to review the Bill. However, we must get out of second reading stage.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition has gone into some kind of apoplexy because of the polls which came out last Friday. There was great consternation a couple of weeks ago when the Gallup poll came out. No one really believed the results. However, when the Carleton poll came out, which
essentially substantiated that the Opposition was in a slide with regard to public support, they called a special committee-


David Kilgour: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) on a point of order.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, you will know that in the House we are forbidden to impute motives to people and that we have a rule of relevance which I guess is observed more in the breach than in the practice. I wonder if the Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) would be so kind, through your direction, to follow the rules with respect to both imputing motives and relevance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I would find some difficulty in recognizing that as a point of order. However, I will remind the present speaker that he has two minutes remaining for his remarks.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) is very tender and nervous about the situation. I really would not want to impute motives. However, the Bill seemed to be moving along and we seemed to be getting to a stage where we thought we were going to have a vote on it late last week or early this week. I do not know whether there was a certain nervousness about the Bill as to whether it was going to meet the needs that people perceive for the accountability and control of Crown corporations. However, suddenly the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) made the brilliant move of putting the six-month hoist on the Bill rather than voting on it to get it moved into committee. I think there are many Members on the other side who are very knowledgeable about this. I think they have some very constructive things to say about the Bill. They have some positive recommendations which will be very useful in the committee stage. However, we really cannot deal with amendments or detailed study at the second reading stage.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think the Bill does a great deal to meet the challenges for increased control and accountability for the many Crown corporations. We essentially have three big ones which have a lot of subsidiaries on which we want to exert parliamentary and government control. I hope that Hon. Members in the Opposition would join with us to move this Bill out of the House at second reading and into committee stage where we can deal with it in more detail and hopefully see it implemented in the next few months.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, and since he raised the point of relevance, I will tell the House that in this type of motion the Chair has been quite lenient. Both speakers so far have transgressed the rule concerning relevance. Since the Member has raised the matter himself, he might keep that in mind. Nevertheless, it has been habit of the Chair to turn a deaf ear, if I may use that expression, to the subject of relevance in this type of debate.
May 16, 1984


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, when I was making the point, I realized that I was going to be hoist with my own petard because a lot of things I was going to say are not totally relevant to the Bill. If I may withdraw that objection, I would be most obliged.
There will be two parts to my remarks. The first will deal with the question of closure. The second will deal with the merits of the Bill itself.
Before getting into those issues, Mr. Speaker, since this whole issue is one of accountability, I will make four points very quickly. With regard to the rules of accountability, I understand that since 1969 when the Government changed the rules, approximately $500 billion to $600 billion have gone through the House in terms of appropriations and spending. I am told that the grand total of $1,000 has been deleted from that $500 billion to $600 billion. In other words, Members of the House are no longer accountable for the moneys being spent through the estimates appropriation process.
Second, we have a $31 billion deficit this year. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) is supposed to see that tax moneys are spent efficiently. The fact that we have a $31 billion deficit is testimony to the way in which we are accounting to the people whose money we are spending. At the end of this year we will have an accumulated deficit of approximately $160 billion. This week we heard that the International Monetary Fund is concerned about Canada's position with regard to financial responsibility. We heard today that the European Management Institute has placed us last of 22 industrial countries in terms of being confident, attracting investment and that sort of thing. I do not have to remind the House about the obscene levels of unemployment in Canada, particularly among young people. I believe our productivity is the lowest of 22 OECD countries. We are either dead last or very close to last in terms of our productivity in an increasingly competitive world economy.
Everyone who looks at this Bill knows that it should really be called a Bill to reduce further the limited control which Members of Parliament have over Crown corporations. Therefore, when the Government and spokesmen opposite talk about this Bill in terms of increasing accountability, I put it to you that that is to make a joke of what is going on here today.
With respect to the question of closure, it strikes me that in a figurative sense the time allocation or closure which has been introduced today is the legislative equivalent of one of the most dreadful of all nuclear weapons, the neutron bomb. In a figurative sense, it leaves the Chamber, the windows, the lights, the Speaker's chair and even the Members standing, but in effect our tongues have been taken out of us. Our right to speak on the Bill has, in effect, been blown away. The right to speak on a measure before the House, Sir, is the most fundamental right that any Member of Parliament has. Is it not going back to the days of Cromwell or worse when the Government says that it has heard enough of us? The last speaker said that we have been speaking too much on the Bill. By implication the Government and the Government alone
Time Allocation
decides when it has heard enough on the Bill and it will do what it wants with the House.
That is not what parliamentary democracy should be about. Time and again the Government has introduced closure. Shortly the people of Canada will have an opportunity to express their opinions on a government which has systematically abused their economic prosperity and the rights of Members of Parliament and is today telling us we can no longer be heard on a Bill about which many of us feel very strongly.
Lastly, I would like to discuss the merits of the Bill. It is a bad Bill for many, many reasons. In the very limited time available to me I will give perhaps six reasons. The Bill leaves the Minister as the de jure shareholder but requires the Cabinet to approve most major initiatives, such as the appointment of directors, auditors, chairmen and chief executive officers as well as the operating capital budgets, corporate plans and by-laws. In other words, Cabinet will exercise the burden of the shareholder's powers. Being accountable to many, in my view, and in the opinion of others who have looked closely at the Bill, Crown corporations will be responsible to no one. In other words, there is no change in the status quo.
Second, the Bill seriously erodes the practical powers and prerogatives of directors of Crown corporations and undermines the attempt to upgrade their duties and responsibilities. You will know, Sir, that the traditional functions of directors are now, under this Bill, to be exercised by Cabinet. Cabinet, for example, appoints the chairman and the chief executive officer and sets their remuneration. Cabinet appoints the auditor. I wonder how many auditors appointed by the Cabinet will be other than friends of the Liberal Party.


Mr. King:: All of them.


David Kilgour: There is no doubt about that. Continuing on, Cabinet will approve and rescind by-laws and may direct a board to approve a by-law. In other words, the Cabinet will take away much of the authority of a director of a Crown corporation. But who but a robot would want to be on the board of a Crown corporation? Who but somebody who wants the per diem or who likes to travel or wants to work his or her way up in a Party which is about to go out of office would choose to be a director of a Crown corporation under this Bill?
On the question of the proliferation of Crown corporations, you will have noticed I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the parliamentary approval process will apply only to parent corporations and not to subsidiaries. You will thus know that that is the area where the greatest proliferation has occurred.
The juxtaposition of Section 100 with Section 155 appears to turn the prohibition on its head by allowing parent corporations to be set up under the CDCA with only Cabinet approval and a motion in Parliament. The Government will still be able to incorporate parent Crown corporations where an existing Act of Parliament allows it to do so.

May 16, 1984
Time Allocation
Finally Bill C-24 could be interpreted, I put it to you, Sir, to suggest that Ministers as representatives of the Crown may not be bound by the prohibition of Bill C-24 on the creation of parent corporations.
My next concern about the Bill is the question of the scope of coverage which simply does not cover many of the major structural problems relating to Crown corporations today. It is silent on matters of internal government organization and it is silent on the privileges and immunities of Crown corporations. It is silent on public servants on boards of Crown corporations. It is silent on the extent of the Government of Canada accounting entity. It is silent on the creation of parliamentary oversight committees for Crown corporations. In addition, as I am sure you know, Mr. Speaker, the Bill covers only wholly-owned corporations. It does not apply to the more than one hundred mixed and joint enterprises.
My conclusion, and I hope it is clear from what I have said, is that the Bill is a dreadfully poor Bill. It represents a net step into the past. In my respectful submission, this House, and any House representing the views of Canadians, should fight as strongly as it can against the Bill.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, in my previous role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport I have had many dealings with federal Crown corporations-


Mr. McDermid:: What do you do now, Jesse?


Jesse Philip Flis: -one as recently as last week. Representatives of the Canadian National appeared before the parliamentary committee and gave us their annual report. At this committee hearing members of all three Parties are able to question the President and the Corporation has to account for every penny it spends of taxpayers' dollars.
Like any business when a recession takes place, a Crown corporation does not have a good year. If the year is good economically, a Crown corporation does better. I was very interested in the financial statement that CN gave the committee. In 1982 CN lost $223 million that year alone. But in 1983 CN had a net income of $212,333,000. Where do these profits go? To the shareholders. Who are the shareholders? The Canadian taxpayers. What is wrong with Crown corporations making profits for Canadians in order to keep taxes down? I see nothing wrong with that.


John Horton McDermid: Name one instance where this has kept the taxes down.


Jesse Philip Flis: That is why I was a little disappointed when the Official Opposition tried to stop the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) making his motion under Standing Order 82 to move Bill C-24 to the next stage. Somehow the Official Opposition fails to respect the rules of this House which members of all three Parties have made. The rules are not made by the Speaker of the House. I was very disappointed that this type of obstruction was attempted again. I am pleased
the Speaker did not allow the Official Opposition to get away with that kind of obstruction.
As was pointed out earlier, surely after 88 speakers on this Bill we are ready to move on to the next stage. If 66 speakers from the Official Opposition could not get their point of view across, then I do not think this can be done if the Official Opposition puts up another 40 speakers.


An Hon. Member:: You have blocked thinking.


Jesse Philip Flis: This is not closure, Mr. Speaker. This is not time allocation. The motion posed by the President of the Treasury Board was to get the debate moving to the next stage. In my two years as Parliamentary Secretary I had the very pleasant experience of putting Bills through, such as the Canada Ports Corporation, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, the western transportation initiatives and the domestic air policy. The meat of the debates took place in committees. That is where the amendments were brought in. There were good amendments from all three Parties. The Government is expressing very clearly that we are prepared to accept more amendments on this Bill but we are not prepared to accept a frivolous amendment which would stall the debate for another six months.
The Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) asked what does the Government propose to achieve by forcing through this Bill? I think it is clear to everyone that the last piece of legislation on Crown corporations or any revision was over 30 years ago. Surely it is time to bring in legislation that would provide this Parliament with some control over Crown corporations, with some accountability by Crown corporations, and would provide sound management. I cannot see why the Official Opposition, which believes in private enterprise, would be opposing control, accountability and sound management in Crown corporations. I am sure the Official Opposition would want those three things operative in a private corporation, but somehow members of the Official Opposition block the proposals when we want to bring them into being for Crown corporations. Yet every day Members of the Opposition get up damning the Government on Canadair, Air Canada-


Mr. McKenzie:: And de Havilland.


Jesse Philip Flis: -because the Government does not have control and it did not see why so much was spent, why a Crown corporation went so far into debt. At the same time the Official Opposition is against a Bill that will ensure this control, accountability and sound management.


John Horton McDermid: It does not ensure it at all.


Jesse Philip Flis: How can the Official Opposition be against the Bill whereby a statute of Parliament will be required to approve the creation, the mandate, the financing and the disposal of every parent Crown corporation?


John Horton McDermid: Parent.
May 16, 1984


Jesse Philip Flis: I just had experience of the Northern Transportation Corporation. The Government is putting it up for sale because it is no longer needed to meet the national interests of Canada. This Bill allows for a sale of that kind, the disposal of a Crown corporation.
How can members of the Official Opposition be against a Bill which by statute will subject Crown corporations to a rigorous audit regime which not only meets but exceeds that normally applied to private sector corporations? How can they be against a Bill which by statute ensures that Parliament will be informed of the objectives of Crown corporations as set out in their annual corporate plans as approved by the Government? How can they be against a Bill which by statute ensures that Parliament will have a systematic flow of timely, pertinent information so that it can judge whether Crown corporations have met their stated objectives for each planning period? How can they rise and be against a Bill which by statute makes the Government responsible for the strategic and budgetary decisions of all parent Crown corporations and through them their wholly-owned subsidiaries? Any directive issued by the Government will be tabled in Parliament. Does accountability not rest with us in the House? If it does not, we are not fulfilling our responsibilities as Members of Parliament.
I was pleased that the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) defined accountability for us. Sometimes we forget what it means. If this legislation goes through, hopefully before the House recesses for the summer, the board of directors will be more accountable; government, whoever is in power, will be more accountable; and the House which accounts for every penny of the taxpayers will be more accountable.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that it is time for me to wrap up my remarks. I want to stress again that we are not debating the Bill at this point. We are debating the motion of the President of the Treasury Board. He is not stopping or limiting debate. He is saying that we want to debate this Bill further in committee where we can hear the amendments of the New Democratic Party, the Official Opposition and Hon. Members on this side of the House. Then we could bring the Bill back to the House. Are they against that parliamentary process?
It is one thing to debate, but it is another to stall. After the first 10 speakers, 55 speakers were put up to stall debate. That is not what we are elected to do. That is not what the people sitting in the galleries, who pay our salaries, send us here to do. They send us here to participate in meaningful debate, to pass good legislation. Hon. Members opposite are afraid that if we pass this piece of legislation, the Government will look good and the Official Opposition will look bad.


Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, the last speaker for the Government clearly indicated our task today. We are debating a motion of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) to gag the House. I do not care what the
Time Allocation
Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) calls it; it has the effect of terminating debate in this place to which we are sent to represent our constituents.
I understand the theory of the herd mentality expressed by that Hon. Member. He indicated that 66 Conservatives had already spoken on this Bill and that there could not be anything of any significance which anyone else would care to add. I resent the suggestion that individual Members of the House, including myself-and I have not spoken on this Bill- do not have something valuable to contribute. If we do not, at least we have the right to exercise our privileges as Members of the House to express our views in this place. I shall do that regardless of the urgings of the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park.


Yvon Pinard: You can do that in committee.


John Albert Gamble: Now we are told by the Government House Leader where to do it. Of course, he would prefer that we do it in some place which is not public.


Yvon Pinard: The committee is public.


John Albert Gamble: I understand the Liberal Party wanting to practise politics in a closet, but that is not the position of my Party.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member is leading the Canadian public astray by saying that committees are not open to the public. Committees are open to the public.


Yvon Pinard: Right on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. If an Hon. Member has a point of order, he must refer specifically to "Point of Order" in the little book.


John Albert Gamble: I might have said that had the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park spent more time in the House, he might understand the rules. However, I doubt that he will have that opportunity for very long.
I should like to deal with the features of this Bill which I quite frankly find offensive. This Bill was not designed, as it would lead us to believe by the provisions of Clause 1 thereof, to control Crown corporations. Rather, it was designed to create the skeleton on which, by regulation, the government of the day will determine all significant portions of the law as it applies to Crown corporations. Later I will refer at some length to the specific clauses in the Bill which deal with this matter in a very direct and improper fashion.
I am curious as to why the Government is so anxious to press forward with this piece of legislation. It is obvious to the Liberal administration that it is most appropriate to extend as far as possible the inroads of Crown corporation activities into the responsible functions to be performed by government itself. If perchance it can "Crown corporationize" every government department, the functions of the Ministers sitting in the front row of government benches will be reduced to performing no

May 16, 1984
Time Allocation
services at all for the people of Canada. They certainly do not answer for the Crown corporations for which they are responsible.
Let me give a most recent illustration of this. On May 3, the Lion. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) directed a question to the Minister allegedly responsible for Canada Post. He drew to his attention comments made by the Auditor General, in particular those with respect to the storing without sorting of some 54 trailer loads of mail to which that Crown corporation had not attended. As reported on page 3376 of Hansard, the allegedly responsible Minister said:
As for the question asked by the Hon. Member, I shall refer it to the President of Canada Post Corporation.
Given the way in which Government Members would prefer to respond to issues, I can well imagine that they will be most satisfied when they are in a position where they can avoid any responsibility for any departmental function which they perform by creating Crown corporations out of those departments. Where they cannot or, where they can intrude into the private sector, into the free enterprise system which has produced the wealth that is sucked away by the Government to fund the folly of corporate activities, they are best served by their own manoeuvres.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the Hon. Member aware that the new corporation, the Canada Post Corporation, is no longer a burden upon the taxpayers of the country and that it has a balanced budget-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I suggest that the Hon. Minister should speak to the Chair concerning his point of order, if he has one to raise.


John Albert Gamble: I commented earlier with respect to the last Liberal Member who spoke. I will respond in a similar fashion with respect to the Minister, who seems to be similarly unfamiliar with the rules of this House. I hope that my time will be extended as a consequence of these improper interruptions. If the Minister believes, when the people of Canada are paying an exorbitant cost for this mailing service, that they are not being overtaxed, the Minister should wake up, be it morning or afternoon, and recognize the serious burden that is placed on the taxpayers of this country by the Crown corporation of which I spoke.
One issue which surely must concern us as we examine this Bill is whether accountability is really brought to bear upon the activities of Crown corporations. One thing might have been done to achieve that alleged objective; that is, to define "auditor" as it appears in the definition clause as being the Auditor General and not as it appears "including a partnership of auditors".
When I served on the Public Accounts Committee, we encountered a great difficulty. It was that every commercial Crown corporation created by government desires to avoid the scrutiny of the Auditor General and have but a simple attest audit for all of its activities. It is so comfortable for that to be
the case because private sector auditors have no responsibility to this House. They have but a responsibility to the board. They tell us that is where the responsibility lies.
If this Government is serious and really wants to make Crown corporations accountable to this place, it ought to amend this offensive piece of legislation to provide that the Auditor General of Canada is the auditor of all Crown corporations. Only then can Members of this House be assured that they will be in the position where they can extract the right information about the way in which the taxpayers' money is consistently being wasted.
I said that I would refer to a number of clauses which clearly indicate the way in which, by regulation only and not by laws passed in this House, the affairs of Crown corporations are to be governed. Let me refer to a few of them.
Under Clause 2.1, the very determination of the corporations to which this Act applies will be made by Order in Council. Subsection 202(1), Section 108, the powers of agents with respect to the disposal of the property of Crown corporations is determined by regulation. Section 118, the remuneration of offices and Section 134, budgets and operating plans, will be determined by Order in Council.
The suggestion by the President of the Treasury Board that he will submit a draft of the proposed regulations is of no comfort to the people in this place. Any draft submitted can be changed the next day. Every Member of this House recognizes that very simple fact. I urge that Members have some regard for the welfare of the people who are carrying the burden of this piece of legislation when they vote on it.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of disgust that I stand to speak to this Bill today because there are people speaking who really do not know what is in the Bill. They are so naive that they do not know what the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) is doing, especially to those in western Canada. If the Minister really had wanted to do something, he would have copied or compared an acceptable Bill, such as the one my colleague, the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), presented when he was a Minister in the Clark Government. If the Government had brought forward a Bill like that, it would have been acceptable.
Members opposite forget that the insolvency Bill passed second reading of this House with one day's debate because it was as good a Bill as this House could put together. That was done by Members of all three Parties. We had input. This is where the Government is going wrong. It is going along on the same dumb pattern it has been following. It is as simple as that.
We are very distrustful of this Government. We had promises from the Government during the Crow debate. The farmers in western Canada know exactly what the Crow debate has done and is doing. It raises the cost of moving their grain. It is an expense that they can ill afford at this time. I quote Clause 17 of the Bill:
May 16, 1984

Notwithstanding section 100 of the said Act, where a parent Crown corporation is in existence on the coming into force of this Act and is not named in Schedule C to the said Act six months after the coming into force of this Act, the directors and shareholders of the corporation shall forthwith after the expiry of that period take all steps necessary to dissolve the corporation.
I do not suppose that you, Mr. Speaker, know what the Canadian Wheat Board is, as well as many Members opposite. In Schedule C we see Canagrex, the baby of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), the Canadian Sports Pool, the baby of the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Olivier), and Petro-Canada, the baby of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien). They are all there. Is the Canadian Wheat Board there? No, it is not.
When western farmers realize that this Government is tampering with the Canadian Wheat Board, there will be an explosion. We have known for years that the bureaucrats in Treasury Board want to manipulate the Canadian Wheat Board. They want to violate the secrecy of the Canadian Wheat Board. They, along with Members opposite, do not have a clue as to how the Canadian Wheat Board operates.
Some people in western Canada feel we can perhaps get along without the Canadian Wheat Board. However, the vast majority of western grain growers are aware of what the Canadian Wheat Board is having to do. If the Government wants to put something in its place, it will take several years. It cannot be done in six months, as this Bill will attempt to do.
This is why we have been debating this Bill. We cannot accept what this Bill is doing to the western grain producer, in fact, to all of western Canada. When you start messing around with the income of the grain industry, you mess around with the whole western Canadian economy. We have had too much of that already. We had it on the National Energy Program, on the Crow issue and now with this Crown corporation Bill.
I am not trying to protect Crown corporations. I know they have to be brought under control and held responsible. I recognize that there are 345 Crown corporations in Canada today, many of them not under the control of the Government. The Canada Council objects to Bill C-24. Why? I will read why:
Under the proposed legislation, the government of the day would be able to issue directives to the council. The government also would have the power to change the council's bylaws.
That means that the Canada Council could be another porkbarrel for this Government. We have been fighting pork-barreling since I came here 12 years ago, but it is getting worse as the years go by.
The President of the Treasury Board is misleading this House and the Canadian people when he says this is an improved framework. He speaks about principles. Members opposite do not have a clue what principles are all about, the way they treat western Canadians. That is why there are no Liberal Members from there and that is why there will not be any Liberal members from western Canada after the next election, whenever they have the nerve to call it. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept the Government's back door method of getting rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is not
Time Allocation
acceptable. There will certainly be an explosion in Western Canada when the news gets out that that is what the Government is doing.
[ Translation]


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I must comment on the Government's arrogance in presenting a motion to limit debate on a Bill that to us is not inappropriate but definitely inadequate. For years, Canadians have become increasingly conscious of this, and, of course, the Government as well, since its reputation has suffered as a result of its refusal to have controls that would allow the House to have some very real supervision over Crown corporations, controls that, if the Government had bothered to listen to what we have been saying on this side of the House for years, would have prevented a tremendous waste of public funds. And that is the issue today, Mr. Speaker. The Government and Government Members are aware of this, and with elections in the offing, they are in a hurry, and they are forcing us today to limit our speaking time, because they would like to improve the image they have ruined by failing to act responsibly in time, an image that, to the general public, is one of irresponsibility.
The Minister is asking the House to limit debate on this question. Mr. Speaker, we have been asking for parliamentary control over Crown corporations for a long time. I am referring to control over spending of tax payers' money, money paid by Canadians who elected us as their legitimate representatives. The Minister or the Government has decided that there has been enough debate. Having been elected legitimately in our respective constituencies, do we not have a responsibility to express our views in the House? Do we not have a duty to inform the House of the views of our constituents? Of course, I realize this is all very tiresome to the Government, which is in a hurry to try and create a more interesting image for the general public.
Mr. Speaker, I am truly shocked that the Minister responsible should try to shove down our throats a Bill whose inadequacy amply justifies the points raised by the Members of this Party. In fact, I want to congratulate them on taking advantage of the opportunity and the time they are normally allowed, I say normally to give voice to the interests of their constituents. That is the kind of democracy that should prevail in this House. And that is what the Government has been trying to destroy for a number of years. For sixteen years, in fact, Mr. Speaker, because it is not the first time I have heard motions of closure, or the guillotine or gag if you prefer. I repeat that, when the Government imposes closure, it is seen by the public as behaviour that is arrogant to the point of being obscene. And this is certainly not the way the Government is going to save its skin. I know the Government thinks that because it has gotten into the habit of imposing motions of closure, of gagging Parliament, the public will start to think

May 16, 1984
Time Allocation
it is an entirely normal procedure. However, it is not, and on behalf of millions of Canadians, I want to condemn the antidemocratic attitude being displayed by this Government today. That is what we should condemn, Mr. Speaker. We have the right to express our views. That is what we are here for. And if our Members should go too far, they will be judged accordingly. We stand behind what we do and what we say. So, now the Government has decided once again that the Opposition has had its say.
The Minister is, of course, in a terrible hurry to upgrade his image, since he has acted irresponsibly.
And besides showing how irresponsible it can be where the protection of public funds is concerned, this Government is now demonstrating how clumsy it can be by imposing closure. In addition, it shows how unacceptably arrogant it is by denying the rightfully elected Members of Parliament the right to express their views on such an important matter! Billions and billions of dollars have been spent, not to say wasted, because we do not have the parliamentary control we are clamouring for as elected representatives. For years, the government has turned a deaf ear to our representations whenever we suggested that a tighter control and a more effective management were required for these government agencies.
There is no need to go very far, Mr. Speaker. As evidence, I refer to one statement where it is clearly said that the Bill gives the Minister the discretionary power to occasionally exempt a corporation from having to table its projections before the appropriate Standing Committee or before Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, how can we honestly be expected in this House to give the Minister such powers after what we have seen? How can we accept the Government's invitation? How can we trust this Government after seeing such irresponsibility and mismanagement? The Minister now believes that he has the power to muzzle the duly elected representatives of Canadians, Mr. Speaker! This is what we must object to in my opinion. However, I have not seen many Government Members. Of course, they are in such a hurry. They are waiting anxiously for someone to do something about control. We would no longer have any control. Bill C-24 was introduced to bring about a comprehensive reform. It is a comprehensive Bill! I, myself, have comprehensive solutions to suggest, but the Government will not give us any comprehensive explanation about its proposals. This is why Members on this side want to speak out and express their views. It is because they also have things to say about this. Of course, the Government will reply: "You can do nothing else but criticize us!" Well, Mr. Speaker, this Government deserves criticisms and accusations. You only have to go out and talk to people to realize how vulnerable this Government has become because of its mismanagement and poor administration. This is why today we are blaming the Government for deciding to impose closure. It is altogether
unacceptable that the Government should succeed in muzzling us, Members of Parliament, myself personally and my colleagues, on issues as vitally important as the use of public funds, something which does not bother the Members on the other side that much. The importance of putting public funds to good use is beyond their understanding! The deficits are there to prove it. They prove mismanagement on the Government's part and those people deserve to see us rise in this House to condemn such manoeuvers and such plans.
For this reason, I hope that, based on the most elementary honesty, this Government will withdraw its motion so that we may finally see whatever true democracy it pretends to support, but which it was never capable of assuming because of its attitude and arrogance.
I am sorry if these words are a bit strong, but I truly deplore this attitude and the way this Parliament, and even more important this country, have been managed.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) make a long speech about the fact that the Government seems to want to prevent Opposition Members from speaking to the Bill before the House. Many Members on his side of the House have already spoken to the Bill. All Members are entitled to do so, and I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that I do not think he himself spoke to the Bill in his speech. Yes, indeed, all Members have the right to do so! What I would like to emphasize, and I do not think the Hon. Member mentioned this in his speech, is that the Government would like to see this Bill referred to the Standing Committee as soon as possible.
The place for clause by clause examination of Bills is in committee. I have several times been a member of the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, the Committee to which this Bill will be referred. We examined some extremely important legislation, clause by clause, sitting for weeks on end, day after day. It will probably be the same with this Bill as well. If the Hon. Member would care to appear before the Committee with his colleagues, to explain his position . .. Perhaps we should explain to Canadians that in committee, important and less important aspects, main points and minor details of a Bill are examined, revised and amended before the legislation is reported back to the House for the final vote.
I found it rather difficult to follow the reasoning of the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who insisted that we keep the Bill in the House for a long time yet, after letting more than eighty Members speak to the Bill, and all this to keep the Bill from going to Committee, where the actual revision is done, on the basis of research by the research officers of each caucus or by individual members, the Departments involved and each corporation. This is where the Bill comes into its own, where it is amended to produce legislation that is accept-
May 16, 1984

able to Parliament and to the citizens of this country, legislation created as the need arises and developed accordingly.
I have just seen a fine performance, play acting worthy of his leader, the revered golden calf as he called it himself during the Progressive Conservative Party leadership campaign, in an attempt to make us believe that the Government wants to gag the Opposition. On the contrary, Members opposite are filibustering to gag Members who have something to say on this Bill and intended to move amendments. That is exactly what is happening.
Earlier someone tried to argue that Crown corporations are not responsible to anybody, which is not true, Mr. Speaker. Crown corporations are now answerable to Cabinet Ministers who, in turn, must account for those Crown corporations to their Cabinet colleagues and answer questions raised about Crown corporations in the House. In addition, they have to appear before the committees of the House when they are asked to attend. The drawback right now is that a Crown corporation is responsible to the committee which happens to be dealing with its field of activity. For instance, the CBC is responsible to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. But with this new Bill, there would be some kind of direct control by parliamentarians and the Canadian Parliament. We would systematically ask the corporations to appear before the committees and answer to parliamentarians, although they would still come under the jurisdiction of a Minister. And besides they would be operating within a structure which is more in keeping with the responsibilities which Canadian parliamentarians have set for the Canadian Government so as to hear what Canadians have to say and what they expect.
I must point out that this Bill is not before the House simply because the Government happens to like it that way. It is a fact that in recent years the Canadian Government has had to get directly involved in a good many cases concerning certain Crown corporations. Our country has been the scene of basic economic changes which forced the Government to step in in areas where it had never expected to intervene. The best example is Canadian Government support for the aeronautical industry. It is obvious that our aeronautical industry would never have left the ground and would not now have 7,000 or 8,000 jobs at de Havilland and Canadair if the Canadian Government had not become directly involved. To do so, the Canadian Government had to proceed through a Crown corporation which, in turn, took over these corporations by purchasing shares. Obviously, this requires special controlling organizations, such as the CDIC, which is funded by both private and public moneys and has the mandate to manage these corporations. This is a new process which has just recently been put into place and which has developed in the course of the last few years, stemming from the CDIC. And it is precisely to meet these new needs that the Government must come up with a bill such as this. Is it fundamentally bad for
Time Allocation
Canada and for Canadians that we should develop a truly Canadian aeronautics industry?
We in the Liberal Party believe it is not. We believe it is good for Canada, for the future of our country, to have a strong technology in this field. As for the Progressive Conservatives, they have demonstrated in the early sixties that they did not believe in the future of this industry when they simply destroyed the work that was being done in this area. They eliminated AVRO and some other aeronautics concerns which existed in this country at that time. Admittedly, this is expensive, but every nation in the world is doing it, most often under the disguise of military expenditures. We in this country are doing the same through public service, through corporations which are involved in the field of civil aircraft production, which is far better than the military cover. Moreover, there are now a lot of Crown corporations by the way with fairly large budgets. There is CBC for instance as well as Air Canada, a Crown corporation which is doing fine and which, without making enormous profits on the back of the Canadian people, has provided this country with quite an interesting air transport system which through its management is directly linked to the government I feel, therefore, that the government should introduce a new legislation thereby allowing Hon. Members to become more involved in the management of Crown corporations, for they are reaching each and every house of this country, whether through its television or radio stations, as in the case of CBC, or through various means of transportation, as in the case of the CN. Crown corporations provide facilities .. . Canada Post, which used to be a government department, was made into a Crown corporation a few years ago. All these corporations are increasingly assuming a greater presence in the everyday lives of the Canadian people. I feel it is good that these corporations should strive to meet the needs which Canadians are expressing and that they should do so following the financial and administrative guidelines defined by duly elected representatives of the Canadian people. I repeat what I said a while ago: I cannot understand the illogical response of the Hon. Member for Joliette who blamed the government for wanting to refer this bill without delay to the proper committee, so that Hon. Members may scrutinize it as soon as possible . . . Not only for each to deal with it in the House for ten minutes or so, but to examine in depth all its sections one after the other, with the power to amend it to meet the wishes and the will of the Canadian people to make it into something acceptable which will work for many years to come and which will meet the needs of our country. In addition, the sooner it is sent to committee, the sooner the committee will undertake a thorough consideration of the bill and amend it the way Canadians want it done, and the sooner it will be brought back for discussion and for a vote in the House. The government and Parliament will thus be able to provide the tool which the members opposite have been demanding for a long time and those corporations will be made

May 16, 1984
Time Allocation
more directly accountable to the Elouse of Commons than they are at present.
I do not understand, try as I may, the attitude of the Hon. Member for Joliette. I am just as anxious as he is to settle the issue and to move amendments if I want to or if my constituents ask me to. I am also eager to have it thoroughly considered. For the information of all Canadians, it should be pointed out that the study of all bills in committee, even if it cannot be seen by Canadians on television as are our proceedings, is important work and is done well. I would like to emphasize also the work done by the members opposite in the various committees, either by the NDP members or the Progressive Conservative members, the work done by our assistants, the research offices of each caucus which provide exceptional support to the members sitting on those committees. And one has to have spent many hours in committee to realize how at this point in time, the Canadian people can contribute under the constitution to the drawing up of bills and laws governing our country. I am proud of having been able to sit on those committees and attend regularly. I am also proud to tell Canadians this always goes on with the enthusiastic cooperation of Hon. Members from all parties, from both sides of the House.
And here is my heartfelt comment at this point, Mr. Speaker: Let us once and for all tell Canadians the truth about our work as members of Parliament, our ways of working. Let us tell them that legislation is referred to Committee because the majority of the work, is done in committee. It is the hidden part people do not see, because television is not there, but it is just the same open to the public and the press. There is something else to be said, for the benefit of Hon. Members opposite. We agree with the Government that one more day of in-House discussion of that bill is enough at this stage. The legislation should be referred to Committee as soon as possible, in order that as soon as possible Hon. Members, whatever their political affiliation, can go through that process of closer scrutiny of the way our Canadian Crown Corporations are managed, because they play such a major role in our everyday lives in Canada.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the comments of the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Gimai'el) with regard to this Bill and to hear him say that the Government will bring in amendments in committee. We want to see the amendments now. We have never heard of any proposal to bring in amendments at the committee stage. We want to see them now because this Bill is only window-dressing with no real substance at all.
Who in his right mind would trust the Government, especially the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) whose word means nothing? The House will recall the time prior to
the last election when he was asked what he would do with interest rates. He said then that he would resign if interest rates were not brought down. Interest rates went up to 21 per cent. Did the President of the Treasury Board resign? Of course not.
I do not trust him. I do not trust him when he says that he really means to go after Crown corporations with this Bill. It is only window-dressing so that the Government can cover up. Who would trust the Government with anything? We want all the proposals defined now, not at committee.
Let us review what is happening with Canada Post Corporation. Dozens of Quebec businesses are giving the stamp of approval to the United States postal service which provides quicker service at lower cost. Truck loads of mail are going daily from Canada to the United States. Those businesses want to mail their letters from the United States. Furthermore, Canada Post is talking about pushing the postal rates up. If the current rates are driving mail out of the country by the truck loads, what will happen when the rates are raised? The Auditor General should immediately find out what is happening with Canada Post.
Approximately a week ago I raised questions with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) who is responsible for Canada Post. I asked him about some very serious problems in Canada Post. For instance, it has been buying sorting equipment at a cost of $750,000. The corporation undertook to install a software patch. The patch was removed six weeks after its installation, and an internal analysis that led to the reversal indicated a drop in productivity. It was inefficient because of excessive handling and delays. The corporation had to disconnect this $750,000 piece of machinery.
I also asked the Minister of Labour to check into the reason why we are getting reports about trailers full of mail sitting on Canada Post lots. As many as 54 tractor trailers have been forgotten for up to and including six weeks. I asked the Minister to look into this situation. I received a smart alec answer from him, asking what I am doing as a critic in the Party. He said that he would pass the information on. He showed no interest at all in this mismanagement at Canada Post. It is just evidence of the attitude of the Liberal Government. If I had been in the Minister's position, I would have thanked the Member who brought this to my attention and would have taken immediate action to bring answers back to the House. If he had done that, he would have been sincere. But I just received a smart alec answer that he will pass it on or perhaps look into it. That is why we do not trust the Government's legislation. Canadians have no reason to trust the Government with respect to anything that is taking place in Crown corporations.
For instance, we see the problems with de Havilland. We are very concerned about its management. The Government waits until there is a total disaster before it moves in to determine what is going on there. However, we do not hear anything about these problems; we only hear that the people who are mismanaging the business are getting bonuses.
May 16, 1984

We have been asking for this Bill for years. It should have been introduced seven or eight years ago, because that is when the horror stories about these Crown corporations were told. For example, in 1976 and 1977 we began hearing about Canadair being on a disaster course. All we heard from the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), who was the Minister in charge of Canadair at that time, was that its situation was never better and that sales were picking up. He said that we should not be raising questions about Canadair and that the Challenger was the greatest aircraft ever built. We could not convince the Government at that time that Canadair was heading toward a disaster course. All we got was a sales pitch in the House of Commons. That has cost us billions of dollars.
We do not want to see Canadair or de Havilland fold. Those Crown corporations should be developing new products. Yet they struggle with a product which they are having great difficulty selling.
When Ford developed the Edsel automobile, its sales were acceptable for a period of time. However, when it became evident that the public was not interested in buying it, Ford stopped making the Edsel and developed a new product that could sell. What the Government should be doing with respect to these Crown corporations is finding some Lee lacocca to run them instead of Liberal rejects, has-beens and failures. The Government does not recruit the proper people to run these Crown corporations. That is why we will not rubber-stamp its legislation and will continue to put up speaker after speaker in order to get the point across.
We have always given constructive criticism. My friend from Red Deer gave excellent examples of what is happening with Crown corporations out west and how they are affecting the farmers. That does not constitute obstruction. When the Government introduces substantial legislation which includes a sound directive appointing the Auditor General to conduct a thorough and proper inspection of all those Crown corporations, then it will get our support. If it were a good Bill it would be difficult to argue against it day after day. We simply do not trust the Government. We will not rubber-stamp any more of its weak legislation.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to make some general comments. We are debating closure on an important Bill dealing with Crown corporations. The Canadian public should know that the Conservatives have helped to make the words "public enterprise" a dirty word. There have been ten years of Conservative and business propaganda about this issue. Let there be no doubt that if the Conservatives become the government they will do what Bill Bennett did in British Columbia and we will see all Canadians suffer the kind of pain that the working people in British Columbia are experiencing. They will try to sell the Crown corporations.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Who will buy them?
Time Allocation


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My friend asks who will buy them. It depends on which Crown corporation you are talking about. There are some very healthy Crown corporations.
1 want to comment generally on why this Bill is important and should be debated. I heard a Liberal member say that there have been many speakers and the debate has been just repetitive. I believe that this Bill and the one concerning the CDIC need to be debated because their importance is not fully understood. I do not believe that the press and some members of the public have realized the importance of these Bills. Very competent people like Joel Bell, Maurice Strong and Senator Jack Austin, the elite group, are really running the wheels of the country for the Liberal Government. That deserves some consideration.
I suggest that we have seen a breakdown of Keynesianism which social democrats, Liberals and some Conservatives had embraced. It has been replaced by individual resignation, a feeling that one cannot do anything, that one is alienated and that therefore one should just forget about it. It has also been replaced by a new neo-Conservatism. I must admit that one of the vibrant forces in debate today is neo-Conservatism. The left which I represent must take part in this kind of debate. That is why this debate is important. Ironically enough, I do not know whether we are seeing its collapse, but certainly the capitalist system in North America is in deep trouble. We are not getting a full growth economy, but we are getting high rates of unemployment. Yet you cannot advocate expansion of the welfare state any more because people, and I think there may be some truth to it, see that the modern state is out of control, centralist, bureaucratic and elitist. We need a different way of approaching the modern state, which means a different way of approaching Crown corporations. We need popular control over the state and over capital. We need to create in these Crown corporations some democratic socialist institutions.
We should be talking about worker ownership and participation. The most radical people in this country talking about these new ideas are the Catholic bishops. They talk about labour being a priority. We on the left talk about its being equal. We should be talking about worker ownership and decentralizing Crown corporations. We should be talking about accountability in different ways such as the ways American committees examine their legislation and keep the Government accountable. We should be talking about new types of boards of directors, not just Liberal hacks or even very competent career bureaucrats on the board. We should be opening them up to native people and women. We should be opening up hydro boards to environmentalists. But we have just one kind of person running the Crown corporations, so is it any wonder that they have become so far removed from the people and their representatives in Parliament?
We should be giving the Crown corporations a mandate and then assessing how they live up to it. Then you would not have things like Canadair and de Havilland happening. All these

May 16, 1984
Time Allocation
things have to be debated and we have hardly touched on these issues. This is the debate of the future.
We are looking at popular and effective representation by people at the local, provincial and national level in governing themselves. The modern welfare has lost that ability. It has delivered a lot for us and put the safety net in place, but it needs to be reformed and we have to start with Crown corporations.
Many Crown corporations are uniquely Canadian and we can be proud of them and the things that have been done. But we have to zero in on some of the things I tried to bring out in the few minutes I have available to me. We should not be capping this debate; we should be expanding it and talking about worker ownership, as people have started to do in certain areas of Europe. We should talk about how we are going to amass the capital in the country for the people so we can take control of our own economy. It must be obvious to Canadians and to Members of the House that our economy is totally dependent on the Americans. We do not have an independent economy any more. We ask questions about interest rates every day and we get the same answer, that we are dependent on the Americans. We should be talking about using our Crown corporations to take control of our economy, much like the original mandate of Petro-Canada.
This Bill does not go far enough to make Crown corporations accountable, and they have to be. We need to have a plan of what they are going to do. We need to have their books independently audited. We need to have witnesses in front of a committee that has some real teeth. I sometimes ask, and my electorate may answer this after the next election, why we are here in the House of Commons if we cannot really examine these Crown corporations? We cannot ask questions on interest rates or control things. What is the role of an MP? It seems to me that we have a real role in debating and assessing these Crown corporations and making them accountable. We have great experience in Canada in this area. Members should look at what Saskatchewan did from about 1944 to 1964. We should also look at the following years perhaps, at some of the mistakes they made with the Potash Corporation and some others in getting away from the people.
We should not end this debate, because we have lots more to talk about. We have to talk about ways of making Crown corporations accountable to ordinary people in this country so that they will once again feel they have some control over their government. I would like to see them become democratic socialist institutions, which would be quite a radical change from the present situation.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, it is hardly a pleasure to get up and speak on this motion because it is another example of the disregard of this Government for popular opinion and the rights of Members of this House. It certainly illustrates the fact that the Government's sincerity with respect to any need to control Crown corporations further is, at best, very suspect.
Before I touch on some other points I want to comment on the remarks of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) who preceded me in the debate. If there is such a thing as a thinking socialist, he is of course one of them. There are very few of them in this country. Mind you, he is not a brilliant example, he is not in the tradition of, say, English socialism. We could not say that he is as brilliant as Michael Foote or some of the other English socialists. But he shines here in Canada among the socialists, certainly among socialist MPs, because he has a modicum, an iota, a small amount in any event, of intelligence. We heard some of it at work here today. The only thing I want to say to him is that he has a love for Crown corporations, but the trouble is, as the Member must understand, that they have no bottom line. We have just had a fantastic illustration of the effect of having no bottom line. When you have no bottom line, and when you have a Government with no shame, one which simply wants to stay in power and not be embarrassed as long as it can hide the facts from the public, and you combine those two, you get the Canadair and de Havilland situation. Those companies got into the tragic position in which they now find themselves, having lost several billions of dollars of credit and of money of the people of Canada, only because they had no bottom line. There was no discipline there. The ordinary private corporation would have sunk several years earlier. Their mistakes would have cost their investors several hundreds of millions of dollars, but they would have gone no further because no financial institution would have given them a loan or conveyed any financial assistance to them once they looked into the matter and saw that they were losing money, that they were poorly managed and that they had no prospects.
Canadair was producing a product which this country did not need produced, and no one else needed it. They could not produce a product which was going to be the best in the world in any event, and now we are in the position in which we find ourselves with Canadair. So there is no bottom line. All the Government did year after year was to turn its back and keep it secret by using letters of comfort. The Government did not even guarantee loans to those companies directly; it gave them letters of credit, which were not legally binding but were morally binding, which the Government will have to observe. They were advanced hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars under letters of credit so the public would not know how much money was going into them or what they were doing.
There is no bottom line unless the Government acts responsibly, and the Government does not act responsibly because it does not want the public to know what has happened or how stupid it has been. And so that is how you end up with the tragedies we have had in those two companies.
Now the Hon. Member from Flis, or the Hon. Flis or the Hon. Member from Toronto somewhere, spoke earlier in debate. I forget his exact district.


John William Bosley: Parkdale-High Park.
May 16, 1984


John Carnell Crosbie: Parkdale-High Park. He was praising CN. He said, "Look at the money CN has made". Mr. Speaker, it is to laugh. I distinctly remember that, since I came to the House eight years ago, we have forgiven CN the obligation of repaying hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in interest payments. The only reason that CN can now pretend it is making a profit is that it was relieved by the House of the responsibility to pay back hundreds of millions of dollars in principal and interest. Anyone could make money if the debts they owed were removed from them, as the CDIC now suggests should be done in the case of Canadair. In a year's time we will have the scoundrels telling us that Canadair is making money, because they will have removed from Canadair billions of dollars in debts and interest payments and left it with its assets. We will have these fools, these rogues, these scalliwags who are now forcing this Bill through the House, telling us in one or two years' time that Canadair has made money.
We need birth control for Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker. We need a system of contraception for Crown corporations so that they cannot spring up whenever someone in the Government gets a fantastic idea to inseminate a new Crown corporation. We need some method of automatic birth control, which this Bill does not provide. Under this Bill, once you have a Crown corporation it can spawn another dozen without coming back to the House. That is one of the weaknesses of this Bill. We want a Bill which will provide foolproof methods of birth control over the spawning of other Crown corporations.
VIA Rail is another example, Mr. Speaker. We have not yet had legislation before the House to establish VIA Rail or to lay down its guidelines. It is spending hundreds of millions of dollars and losing it. This is another example of the escape of responsibility of the Government.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) was here earlier. He is a fuzzy-minded socialist. He is even more to the left than our friend, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. The other day, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asked whether we would prefer a French socialist to a Canadian Liberal as Secretary General of the OECD. Of course, the answer is yes. The French socialist would be far less likely to intervene in the economic conduct of society than would a Canadian Liberal. We would far rather have a French socialist than the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) as Secretary General of the OECD. We would sooner have anyone. We do not want a failed Canadian Minister of Finance heading up that international organization.
The Minister of Finance has a Crown corporation called Fishery Products International Limited in Newfoundland. The Leader of the Liberal Party in Newfoundland has described our Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as a liar. I have never heard of this happening before, Mr. Speaker, and I do not know what it has to do with Crown corporations. "De Bane lied to shield Tory, top Liberal says". Mr. Neary is the top Liberal in Newfoundland. He is the Leader of the Opposition.
Time Allocation
I will quote from an article in the March 16 issue of The Globe and Mail. It says:
Mr. Neary, during a dispute with Fisheries Minister James Morgan, said federal Fisheries Minister Pierre De Bane was a liar for denying publicly that Mr. Morgan had cried during talks leading up to the creation of the new super fish company in Newfoundland.
That is apparently where forming Crown corporations leads one. The Minister of Fisheries has taken over Fishery Products International-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 5.15 p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 82 have expired.

It is therefore my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.

The motion is the following. Mr. Gray moves that, in relation to Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, one additional sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and that 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business on that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of that stage shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: May 16, 1984
Time Allocation
Messrs.
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Johnston
Joy a I
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Beauce)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lumley
MacBain
MacLaren
++NAYS
Messrs.
Fulton
Gamble
Gass
Greenaway
Gurbin
Gustafson
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hees
Hnatyshyn Hovdebo Howie Jelinek Jewett (Ms.)
Kempling
King
Knowles
Lambert
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDougall
Manly
Mazankowski McCuish McDcrmid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-G reen wood) McGrath McKenzie McKinnon
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Parent
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Regan
Roberts
Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore) Rompkey Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Weatherhead Whelan Yanakis-123.
McKnight
McMillan
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich) Neil
N ickerson
Nielsen
Ogle
Orlikow
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Speyer Stewart Taylor Thacker Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wenman Wilson Wise-91.
I declare the motion carried.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES, POLICY AND PROGRAMS COMPOSITION OF STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion that refers to the composition of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, Policy and Programs. We have had discussions with the other Parties about this. I move:
That the quorum of the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on Official Languages, Policy and Programs, be six Members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses, the Government and the Opposition are represented, and that the joint Chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when four Members are present so long as both Houses, the Government and the Opposition are represented; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that the House do unite with this House for the above purpose.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been the consultations indicated. This motion is necessary in order to establish a quorum under the circumstances. I simply rise to indicate that we are prepared to consent to the motion being put and the passage thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement for the Parliamentary Secretary to introduce this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Evans) agreed to.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 165, 166, 168, 566 and 790.


Mr. Mazankowski: Were 14 recommendations made to the Government in the Economic Council of Canada's 19th Annual Review Lean Times and, if so (a) which recommendations were accepted by the Government and what has been done to implement them (b) which recommendations were rejected and for what reasons (c) what is the status of the remaining recommendations?


John Leslie Evans: No. Of the Council's 14 recommendations, three were not addressed to the Government.
(a), (b) and (c) Recommendations of the Economic Council represent important inputs to the Government's long-term policy considerations. However, the Council is one among a
May 16, 1984

variety of sources of advice consulted by the Government. The Government has, therefore, neither explicitly accepted nor rejected the recommendations, but rather has incorporated them within the framework of considerations bearing on
policy.
Motions for Papers
therefore are not paid in respect of their positions with 103912 Canada Inc.


EXEMPT STAFF OF SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ECC- REPORT &quot;INTERVENTION AND EFFICIENCY&quot;
Mr. Mazankowski: Were 31 recommendations made to the Government in the Economic Council of Canada's report Intervention and Efficiency and, if so (a) which recommendations were accepted by the Government and what has been done to implement them (b) which recommendations were rejected and for what reasons (c) what is the status of the remaining recommendations?


John Leslie Evans: Yes, although the recommendations were directed to both federal and provincial governments, (a), (b) and (c) See reply to question No. 165 answered today.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Are any exempt staff employed by the Department of External Affairs and, if so, what are their (a) titles (b) positions (c) names?
2.	Do any of the staff mentioned in part I receive income, financial assistance or other benefits related to their employment from sources other than the ministerial budget and, if so (a) which members (b) what are the details of the income, financial assistance or other benefits?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No. The Secretary of State for External Affairs employs exempt staff as follows:
I.	(a) & (b)	(c)
ECC-REPORT "IN SHORT SUPPLY, JOBS & SKILLS IN THE 1980s"


Mr. Mazankowski: Were 12 recommendations made to the Government in the Economic Council of Canada's report In Short Supply, Jobs & Skills in the 1980s and, if so (a) which recommendations were accepted by the Government and what has been done to implement them (b) which recommendations were rejected and for what reasons (c) what is the status of the remaining recommendations?
Executive Assistant Special Advisor Special Assistants
Kenzie MacKinnon
Sean Riley
Pearl Hunter Alfred LeBianc Veronica Gillies Ronald J. MacDonald Moses Coady


John Leslie Evans: No. Two of the 12 recommendations were directed to provincial governments, (a), (b) and (c) See reply to question No. 165 answered today.
2. No.


John Leslie Evans: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
103912 CANADA INC.


Mr. Howie: To the knowledge of the Government is 103912 Canada Inc. a subsidiary of Petro-Canada Inc. and, if so, what are the (a) names (b) positions of the persons who occupy positions on the Executive and Board of Directors and, in each case, what amount was he/she paid in respect of that position in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1983?


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.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Petro-Canada Inc. reports as follows: Yes.
Executive of 103912 Canada Inc. (a) Name
Mr. Kenneth G. Donald Mr. David P. O'Brien Ms. Muriel Rhynes
(b) Position
President
Secretary
Assistant Secretary


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Board of Directors of 103912 Canada Inc.
(a) Name
(b) Position
Mr. Wilbert H. Hopper	member
Mr. Edward M. Lakusta	member
Mr. David P. O'Brien	member
The Executive and members of the Board of Directors of 103912 Canada Inc. are all employees of Petro-Canada and


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suggest that you seek the unanimous consent of the House to see six o'clock. We have had a very interesting day. The Government has once again rammed through, by closure, its intention. I am sure you could see the clock as indicating six o'clock. We will carry on tomorrow in a spirit of co-operation.

May 16, 1984
Motions for Papers


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the suggestion made by my hon. colleague. Of course, if we had rammed something through, the Hon. Member would not have agreed to sacrifice 10 minutes of his time. However, we do agree.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for raising this matter at this point but I would like your guidance on this matter. If we call it six o'clock now, would it cut 10 minutes off the total
amount of time allotted for debate, or would that amount of time be reserved?


Mr. Speaker:: In the interpretation of the Chair, no time will be taken off the debate. Time will run in the normal course.
It being 6 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.51 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 17, 1984