1984-05-14

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have several times brought to the attention of the Minister, in this House and by letter, the plight of a constituent of mine who lives in Cochrane, Alberta. He paid $1,000 on an instalment basis to the Department of National Revenue through the Mercantile Bank in Calgary, on October 14, 1975. The Minister admits the money came to the Department, it was not credited to this man's account, and about that time it sent a $1,000 cheque back to the Mercantile Bank in Calgary because of a lack of identification. The bank says it is agreed by all that my constituent paid the $1,000 in October, 1975, and that the bank took another $1,000 to pay this same account out of this man's bank account, by order of Revenue Canada, because it had not been credited to his account.
The bank goes on to say there is evidence that the man paid the $1,000 and the Department does not have evidence it paid the $1,000 back to the bank. The bank says if it had some evidence of that, the bank would make it good. But the Department cannot come up with that evidence because the Minister says the departmental records have been destroyed. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this man should not be left holding the bag.


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


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Gaston Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have always wondered what the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party meant by cutbacks. He has said time and time again that cutbacks are absolutely necessary, adding that if he were
to form the Government, he would make radical cuts in spending, wherever and whenever that would be necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that at the very first opportunity, the Leader of the Official Opposition did not hesitate to spend our tax money very generously. Cutbacks were certainly not on his mind when he spent nearly $150,000 in public money on renovating, redecorating and a few coats of paint at Stornoway, the official residence of the Leader of the Opposition.
Predecessors of the present Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party showed Canadians they took cutbacks more seriously. Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot afford to move this free spender from Stornoway to 24 Sussex Drive, the official residence of the Right Hon. Prime Minister. However, perhaps the Progressive Conservative Leader can afford to spend this kind of money on his residence because he already knows he will be there for a long time. He has signed a long term lease, unless the long knives of the Progressive Conservative Party do their work once more.


INVESTITURE OF GOVERNOR GENERAL SAUVE
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, those of us who have the honour to sit in this Chamber develop a special kinship for one another regardless of party affiliation. We take deep personal interest in one another, and that continues even when we leave this Chamber. Never, Sir, were those ties more deeply felt, never was that interest more deeply evidenced than this morning when we saw one of our former Members elevated to the highest office in the land as Governor General. We who came here in the class of '72 are particularly proud that one of our number should be so designated.
Her Excellency, Madam Sauve, takes with her to that high office a wealth of experience and accomplishment which has distinguished her public service to Canada.

I said that Members of the class of '72 are happy to see this great honour conferred on one of their group. Speaking as well, if I may, on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, since we both became Members of the House at the same time as Mrs. Sauve, I must say that we are particularly pleased. We are proud of the fact that she is the first
3674

May 14, 1984
woman to be appointed to this very distinguished post. We are convinced she will approach this new task with wisdom and fortitude, and we wish her the very best.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government has done a great deal for people in northern communities, especially in the last two years since the iron ore slump hit the North Shore. However, I do wish the Government would continue to look at what is happening to people in Schefferville, Gagnon and Fermont, and in Labrador City and Wabush next door to my own constituency, because there are people who have been laid off recently and who have yet to receive all the benefits agreed to by Iron Ore. They should receive some additional assistance from the Government. Mr. Speaker, it is often said that our recovery is being launched by the private sector. I must say that on the North Shore, the private sector caused the problem. I would like to see the Government make an additional effort to provide assistance, not to companies that are already being helped through the statutory measures of our programs but to the people directly affected by the recession.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Government of British Columbia passed a Human Rights Act which represents a big step into the Dark Ages for British Columbians. This Act violates several international conventions previously agreed to by the Government of British Columbia.
Under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Against Women, Canada has agreed to educate the public about racial and sexual discrimination. The proposed new Human Rights Council in British Columbia will be unable to enforce existing legislation against racial discrimination and discrimination against women.
This new legislation drops the clause prohibiting discrimination "without reasonable cause". By dropping this clause the provincial Government is violating the spirit of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since the federal Government is aware of these violations and some Ministers have rejected the provincial Government's changes to the Human Rights Act, I would like to call on the Prime Minister
to have a serious talk with Premier Bennett. These violations should be presented to the United Nations tribunal by the appropriate body.


INVESTITURE OF GOVERNOR GENERAL SAUVE
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, as already mentioned by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), today Canadians witnessed the investiture of the Hon. Jeanne Sauve as the 23rd Governor General of Canada. After a lengthy illness we are pleased that God gave her the health and the strength to assume the highest office of our country. By accepting this office, her Excellency has made today a great day for all women in Canada, and a great day for Canada itself.
Her Excellency has already drawn our attention to two serious issues facing Canada and the world, the problems of our youth and the problems of Third World people who find themselves in countries less fortunate than our own. On behalf of the Constituents of Parkdale-High Park I wish Her Excellency, the Hon. Jeanne Sauve, continued health and strength so that, with our help, she can find solutions to the problems facing Canada and the world.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on an important matter relating to the cancellation of VIA Rail passenger service between Toronto, Peterborough, and Havelock. Since its very questionable termination in 1981, we in the Official Opposition have continually criticized the decision to terminate the most cost-efficient route in Canada. In fact our opinion was fully endorsed by the Railway Transport Committee of the CTC which recommended that:
-pending the outcome of this further review, the Toronto-Havelock service shall not be discontinued.
The reason for cancelling this service, we are told, was based upon insufficient funds and the need for restraint. It will, therefore, come as quite a surprise to learn that the Grand Trunk Corporation of Detroit, a subsidiary of Canadian National, is attempting to buy control of the bankrupt Milwaukee Road Railway which has net liabilities of approximately $250 million. Its main competitor to buy this line is the Soo Line of Minneapolis, which in turn is controlled by Canadian Pacific.
It is indeed interesting that the railways which have no money for functioning Canadian lines have sufficient bankrolls to bid for bankrupt American rail lines. It is deplorable and fiscally irresponsible for two Canadian railways to compete for the acquisition of foreign owned companies while simultane-
May 14, 1984

ously denying Canadians the right to rail service, such as the Toronto-Peterborough-Havelock line.



PIPELINES


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, Members of Parliament will recall some three years ago granting authority for the pre-build section of the Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline, that part designed to exploit Canadian gas reserves for the benefit of American markets, on condition that the line would be constructed in its entirety at some future date. Members will remember the so-called iron clad guarantees of the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the gentleman who now holds the portfolio of Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). Well, it now appears that the line, in all probability, will never be built.
Yukon Pacific Corporation, headed by Walter Hickel, former Governor of Alaska, has now formally applied for permission to construct a trans-Alaska line to sell Prudhoe Bay gas to Japan. The end result is likely to be that Canada supplies the "lower 48" with cheap Canadian gas, while the Americans sell their own Alaskan gas to Japan at much higher prices. So much for the iron-clad guarantees, so much for the national energy policy, and so much for the guideless ex-Minister of Energy and the discredited Liberal Government which he serves.



MEDICAL CARE


Mr. Bill Biaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express concern about recent developments in Alberta. We have learned that the Progressive Conservative Government of Alberta is considering contracting out the administration of health care in that province to the private sector.
We have just gone through a process where we had a national consensus in favour of all principles of medicare. In the interests of that consensus, and in the interests of the future of medicare, 1 call on my Progressive Conservative colleagues to the right to condemn what their buddies in the Alberta Government are contemplating with respect to the future of medicare. Let us hear from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), and from the Tory health critic, that they do not want to see the privatization of health care in Alberta. Then we will be able to believe them and what they had to say about the Canada Health Act and the future of medicare. Or is this a portent of the kinds of things we will see if and when we have a Conservative Government in Canada?
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On February 10, 1980, he said, as reported in The Toronto Star, that it was his belief we could manage the economy in a way which would allow us to have lower interest rates, and that he thought "we can have greater independence in interest rate policy". Since then the prime rate went to 22.75 per cent. It was later down to 11 per cent, and it has started back up. It is now 12 per cent.
Last week, on May 10, the Prime Minister stated "that when the basic rate in the U.S. goes up it is impossible for Canadian rates not go up ... we cannot divorce ourselves from the American money markets."
Which statement of the Prime Minister is the true and correct one-his election bait statement, or the latest one? What has happened to change the Prime Minister's mind about Canada having greater independence in interest rate policy? Why is there this about-face in the last four years?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I explained last week in answer to questions, I believe from the Hon. Member's Party and members of the other Party, that the reason we cannot be completely isolated from the United States is that we have a free money market in Canada, as there is in the United States. If Canadian people who save their money want to obtain a market rate and the market rate goes up, they will obviously lend their money for higher interest rates. What I was explaining-and I will explain it again to the Hon. Member; he may not have been listening-is that there is no way without controls that the Government can force Canadians to lend their money to the Canadian Government, or to other Canadians, at a lower rate of interest than they could obtain in the United States.
What would a Canadian saver, to whom we would say: "Be a nice fellow. The Member from Newfoundland would love you more if you were prepared to lend your hard-earned savings at 8 per cent rather than at 10 per cent or 12 per cent", say to the Hon. Member from St. John's, Newfoundland? He would say: "Why shouldn't I lend my money for the market rate? If you in Canada do not want to borrow my money-your banks, or your Government through your savings bonds-at the going rate, I will go to the United States, lend my money there, and get more money for it".
In simple terms, or in terms the Hon. Member can understand-and I see that he is nodding in assent, he understood this-this is why it is impossible, without controls, to be completely independent of American money markets. I know the Hon. Member would not want us to go to controls, therefore that is my answer.

May 14, 1984
Oral Questions


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I read every word of the Prime Minister with great attention, because he is a vanishing specimen. He will soon be gone. My question to the Prime Minister is not on what he now understands. It is to ask why he deceived the Canadian people four and one-half years ago. Why did he not then give the explanation he gives us now? The Prime Minister said then that we could have greater independence in interest rate policy. Now he is saying we can have no independence. Is it because of the incompetence of the Prime Minister and his Government that the chance for independence has gone?
Let me put this to the Prime Minister. Last Thursday he said that Members should understand that interest rates in Canada are a direct reflection of interest rates in the United States. If he did not understand that in 1980, after 12 years in power, and told the Canadian people the opposite, how can he now expect Members to understand the opposite of what he told and promised the Canadian people?
Does the Prime Minister now say we have no influence over our economic destiny? Is this where the Prime Minister is proposing to lead Canadians after 16 years of their putting trust in him, saying we have no options?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not proposing to lead the Canadian people. The Hon. Member just said that I was a vanishing species. Therefore, I will not be leading them.
If he asks about whether it is possible to have a measure of economic independence from the United States, the answer is yes. In the 1980 campaign we pointed out several ways in which the Government would continue to assert its independence over its economic destiny. We did this with many measures, not all approved by the Opposition. For instance, in the area of foreign investment we know that foreign investment cannot come here, even with higher interest rates or higher returns promised to its shareholders, if it is not cleared by the Foreign Investment Review Agency. We know the same is true in the area of banking, and in the area of investment in financial institutions. There are areas where we can be independent, where the interest rates and the dividends and so on can be made to differ by the Canadian Government.
Once again, without over-all controls we cannot isolate ourselves completely in every area from the American market. The example I gave last week is true for every country in the world, particularly every industrialized country. They are seeing the value of their currency devalued because citizens of their countries, like citizens of Canada, are sending their money to the United States where they can get higher interest. Even in the case of the less developed countries, the Third World, they are being very heavily penalized by high interest rates in the United States. It is causing them to have to pay world-wide interest for their borrowings in the United States. They are paying high interest rates because of the interest rate prevailing for the American dollar.


SECRETARY-GENERALSHIP OF ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we have heard the Prime Minister admit that he is beaten, that he is whipped by these economic problems. The Prime Minister is now asking the OECD nations to accept this country's Minister of Finance as the new Secretary General of the OECD. We know that the United States is supporting a French diplomat, anyone but our Minister. What are the chances of the Canadian Minister, in the view of the Prime Minister? Will the Prime Minister explain why the OECD should accept a Minister from the Prime Minister's Government in view of this Government's tragic economic failures? Is it that the Government wants to spread the misery by sending-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has concern about this as a supplementary flowing out of previous questions. A supplementary should come out of an answer previously given. This appears to be raising the question of an appointment.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase my final supplementary.
In view of the Government's record regarding interest rates and the economy in general, why does the Prime Minister have the audacity to ask the OECD to accept a failed Minister of Finance as its new Secretary-General?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member suggests that I am leaving because I am beat. He must surely remember December, 1979. I still command a majority in the House, Mr. Speaker. I am not beat. The Hon. Member was beaten, and his Budget was beaten. That is why they are sitting on that side of the House, and they will sit on that side for a long while. I think the reason why they will, Mr. Speaker, is because of the extraordinary pettiness and ungraciousness of the Hon. Member, supported by laughs from the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands and everyone else, when they attack the desire of the Canadian Government to have a Canadian as Secretary-General of the OECD.
The Tories are unable to rise above petty politics even when it is a question of Canada's prestige abroad. They would prefer a socialist from France to a Liberal from Canada, and that is the measure of their thinking.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. He will know that acid rain and its impact on over 90,000 Canadian lakes continue to be one of our most urgent and pressing environ-
May 14, 1984

mental problems. He will also know that Inco, a non-ferrous smelter, is emitting approximately 2,000 metric tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the air each day. He will also be aware of the task force report which identified the financial and ultimate employment problems faced by Inco and other smelters when trying to come to grips with this emission problem.
I would like to ask the Minister if he has committed himself to the course of action that was recommended by the task force report and, if so, if there are solutions. What is he intending to do on behalf of the federal Liberal Government to control emissions in Canada today so that the lakes and the other areas of the environment that are affected by those emissions will not be affected in the five to 10-year intervening period before the ultimate solutions, which will depend upon research, will be determined?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is that, of course, I am committed, and we are all committed, to those reductions.
To deal with the Hon. Member's question in detail would take a fairly long answer. However, I would like to assure the Hon. Member, who shares this concern with all of us, that the report of the task force which dealt with non-ferrous industries recommends that the modernization of the non-ferrous industries proceed, with the idea of pollution reduction in mind. Thus, at the same time as those industries proceed with modernization, they will include in their plans an emission reduction program. The study is the first step in that direction. As well, it sets out a program for an industry by industry approach. As new technology is developed, the implementation of the reductions will take place.
I would invite the Hon. Member to look at the task force report as being the first step in the right direction. As well, there will be a working group of federal-provincial Ministers which will meet regularly in the months and years ahead to see to it that this program is put into place. I look forward to working with that group.


EFFECT ON NEW YORK STATE
Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The Minister will know that I and my Party have an absolute commitment to the research and development of the efficient commercial operations that are important to this industry in the long term. That, however, is a long-term solution. The Minister is talking about a delay of five to 10 years before there will be an actual reduction of emissions from those important sources.
I would like to ask the Minister if he is aware that 30 per cent of the acid rain falling on the State of New York actually comes from Canada, while only 10 per cent of it comes from the industries and the people of the State of New York. So what kind of an argument do we have, and what kind of agreement can we reach with the United States? What kind of important agreement can we reach with the United States,
Oral Questions
which must be necessary in order to control our own North American environment if we, in fact, are giving to some States more acid rain than they are giving to themselves?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I am faced here with two questions and I will try to answer them as quickly as I can. First of all, there is no delay implied in the study which was just published. As the Hon. Member knows, we have already in place a planned reduction of 25 per cent by the year 1990. Inco has been ordered to cut. Ontario Hydro has been ordered to cut 43 per cent by the year 1990. It has been indicated to Noranda by the Quebec Government that it should cut 40 per cent by the year 1990. However, an order by the Quebec Legislature has not yet been passed. I raised this matter with my provincial counterpart this morning.
As to the situation in New York, Mr. Speaker, of course emissions are exported on Canada's part, but there is also a phenomenal amount of tonnage which comes across our border into Canada from the south. This is why we have tried to convince the Americans to come on board, and we will continue to do so, because we have made this commitment to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 1994. We know that we need the co-operation of the Americans to achieve a safe level of emission. We must get the co-operation of an administration in Washington which prefers to carry out scientific research without really taking on the responsibility it has to face, namely, cutting emissions, as we are already doing in Canada by ordering a 25 per cent cut in emissions by the year 1990.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will attempt to recognize supple-mentaries later, in fairness to the parties involved. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


FINANCE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister who, on Friday, was attempting to explain the Government's inaction regarding the tragic unemployment level still being faced by Canadians.
The Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues have indicated, time and time again, that it is the private sector they look to in terms of getting Canadians back to work. Yet many of us feel that the present tax policy, which intends to encourage the expansion of businesses, tends to favour almost exclusively the large corporate sector which, if there is expansion, tends to be capital intensive as opposed to labour intensive. Is that the Prime Minister's observation as well? If it is, why would he continue with this type of tax policy which favours the large corporate sector with its capital intensive development, at the expense of small businesses or labour intensive development?

May 14, 1984
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member looks at the over-all government policy, particularly the way it was reflected in the Budget, he will remember that there was a whole series of measures, including tax measures and tax simplification measures for small businesses-not for the large businesses. There were special concessions made to the small businesses in Canada, not only in terms of the rate of income tax, corporate income tax, but also in terms of the filing of the returns. It seems to me that if the Hon. Member would look with a fair mind at the Budget which the Minister presented earlier this spring, he would see that it bears out a thesis exactly contrary to that of the Hon. Member, to wit, the last Budget was very favourable to small businesses as opposed to the large businesses.


TAXATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister refers to the simplification of the tax form, which was expected by small-businessmen. Indeed, there were some improvements, at least, which are now about to be tabled. Other than simplifying the taxes which small businesses are required to pay-that does not mean diminishing but simplifying the process-can the Prime Minister identify two or three benefits which the small business sector derived from the recent Budgets in terms of reduced taxes or tax incentives? Can the Prime Minister identify two or three benefits for us?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to send the Hon. Member a copy of the Budget and of the Minister's budget speech. However, in the very asking of the question, when he says "to simplify", the Hon. Member will remember that not only was the Minister simplifying, but he was giving a very considerable number of small businesses access to the simplified and lower rates which had not been covered before.


BUSINESS INCENTIVES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my last supplementary question will, in a sense, be a revision of my previous question. The Prime Minister likely knows that there are approximately 200 areas of assistance to business as a result of tax policy-200 tax incentives, tax breaks or tax loopholes, whatever one wants to call them. Out of those 200 tax breaks for business, about three or four apply specifically to small business. I wonder if the Prime Minister could identify simply one which relates to the small business sector, out of those 200.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member says "200", surely he must have at least 50 in his mind. Perhaps he could identify 50.


COPYRIGHT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. No doubt the Minister will be aware that for the past 13 years Canada's universities and schools have been trying to obtain access to CBC broadcasting materials which could be useful in our schools and universities across Canada, for education purposes. The Minister of Communications has stated in the past that he is working in conjunction with the Minister's Department in order to find a solution to the problem, and to examine the copyright laws. Both Departments have set up a task force, and a report was to be filed. This was some time ago, and I wonder if the Minister could explain to the House what the task force has recommended in finding a solution to the problem?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not received the recommendations of the task force as yet. However, I will be consulting with the Minister of Communications, if he has indeed received that report.


PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN UNITED STATES
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications stated in 1982 that the report would be filed in the summer of 1982.
In the United States the Government has appointed an educators' ad hoc committee on copyright law to examine the problem. They have found a solution to the problem and have now reached an agreement with the TV and radio networks in the United States so that anything can be taped off-air, held for 45 calendar days, and viewed in class any number of times during the first ten days of school. This has been accomplished without any amendments to the United States copyright laws. Will the Minister investigate and find out why we cannot find a solution to this problem now? A delay of thirteen years is not acceptable.


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, there is a solution to the problem. The Hon. Member must be aware that we tabled a white paper on copyright just ten days ago in which we look at all areas of copyright and how they should be changed. That paper has been referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture and will be examined there. I hope the Hon. Member will be an active participant because we would like to see the legislation approved, and the Act changed some time early in the fall.
May 14, 1984


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The Minister will be aware that one of his officials, Mr. Robert Young, has interfered with the fund raising efforts of the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie. The hospital plans to give one autographed copy of a print by Ken Danby, a well known Canadian artist, to each of 500 persons who donate in excess of S500 to the building fund of the Hospital, which would bring in the amount of $250,000.
Mr. Young has ruled that, if this is done, tax deductible receipts will not be issued. In light of the fact that his Department will collect tax on the $20,000 which Mr. Danby will receive for the original painting, and the fact that I have previously brought this up in the House and have written the Minister two letters, will the Minister now agree to reverse Mr. Young's decision and support this very worth-while cause?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I may point out to the Hon. Member that the courts have already ruled that for donations to be called charitable, no material good should be received in return.
Nevertheless, I can assure the Hon. Member that I am still discussing the issue of charitable organizations with my officials and the matter is also being discussed with the parties concerned.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it has been three months now. I believe that if the Minister cannot reverse a decision of one of his underlings, it is proof positive again that not only is he discriminating against the taxpayer but he is discriminating against Canadian artists and Canadian hospitals which are under funded because of his Government. If this modern day Shylock will not reverse that decision and tell us he will, why does he not resign and take his place among the lifeless candidates for the Liberal leadership?


An Hon. Member:: Bravo, bravo!


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I am not resigning because I am not as stupid as the Hon. Member. His argument shows, first of all, that he is ignorant of the laws of this country, and second, that he does not know the facts. Let him get his facts straight first and then argue on the basis of those facts.
Oral Questions


HOUSING
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for three days to ask a question of the Minister responsible for housing. I will ask it of the Prime Minister.
In the past, Mr. Speaker, the unit allocation for co-ops and non-profit housing was in the hands of the recipients by the end of February in order that work could start on the projects. We are well into May and the co-ops and non-profit housing groups are still waiting for an indication of the total number of units which will be approved this year. CMHC is stalling, and releasing funds in dribs and drabs. Can the Prime Minister tell us why the money has not been sent out to these groups? How many units are going to be approved? Would it be possible to have that amount tabled in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister I will have to take the Hon. Member's question as notice. I do not have the answers at hand.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River on a supplementary. Does the Hon. Member for Prince Albert have a supplementary? In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has taken the question as notice, it is difficult to understand how a supplementary would be in order. However, I will concede one to the Hon. Member.


SOCIAL HOUSING PROGRAM
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my second question is much more on policy. A large portion of the federal Government's social housing program has been-


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has indicated he would have to take the first question as notice, it is difficult to construe this kind of a supplementary question as being in order. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert, but he cannot ask a detailed question.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: A large portion of the federal Government's social housing program goes to social-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River on a supplementary.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Mines). It is supplementary to the question asked on the report on the non-ferrous metal side. It is quite apparent from the report that the Government relies almost entirely for the clean-up of our

May 14, 1984
Oral Questions
environment on industry, on the economic recovery of the mining sector, and on the discovery or development of new technology. Does the Government have any plans to accept some public commitment to clean up the environment instead of putting all the blame on the shoulder of industry, particularly at a time when the mining sector faces such an uncertain future and when the development of new technology is quite far off in the future?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, the report said quite clearly that capital funds may be required. I think the commitment of the Government of Canada is quite clear too. My colleague, the Minister of the Environment, has said publicly that we are committed to a 50 per cent reduction by 1994. That is the objective which he has staked out. I concur with that and intend to assist in meeting it. The report is an analysis. It is an important first step. We must now refine the technology in order to achieve two things. The first is environmental protection and emission reduction. The second thing, which is equally important, is the efficiency and health of the mining sector itself. Knowing where the Hon. Member comes from and what his interests are, I think he would support that. I want to bear those two objectives in mind. We on this side of the House intend to do what we can to promote the achievement of both those objectives.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, no one argues with these objectives. However, rather than making any more arbitrary decisions and commitments with the provincial Ministers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions and other harmful airborne particles, would the Minister undertake to meet with industry to ensure that the health of the industry is safeguarded against any arbitrary decisions which have been made in the past?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, that kind of meeting has taken place in great depth. The industry was very much a part of this report, feels very strongly about it, and indeed concurs with the report. I will be meeting with my colleague, the Minister of Mines, on Wednesday. I intend to raise this matter with him. This should be a tripartite effort on behalf of the Government of Canada, the provinces, and the industry.
With regard to consulting industry, I have my own advisory committee. I have met with the Mining Association of Canada already and will be speaking to them again on Wednesday night. Our commitment is to achieve the objectives in consultation with industry.


VIA RAIL
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, if I can get his attention. The Minister has indicated that VIA Rail service between Edmonton and Vancouver will not be restored without provincial participation. Will he indicate to the House why he does not feel that there is a legal, constitutional, and moral responsibility of the federal Government to restore that service as quickly as possible?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona has put two premises to his question, both of which are wrong. I did not say that we would require them to participate in the redevelopment of a line itself. I indicated that because the major benefit of any restoration would be in the area of economic development and tourism, it would be very helpful to have the participation of local municipalities and the provinces on the economic development side of any restoration which might be contemplated. This would include such things as marketing, related tourist facilities or whatever, in order to determine how serious they were in their commitment to the economic development activity within that region. We would be prepared to adhere to our provision of rail service as long as there was a clear indication of their willingness to be a partner in the over-all program of enhancing tourism and economic development activity. That, Mr. Speaker, was the type of proposition we put forward, as opposed to the kind the Hon. Member has outlined.


GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, you will see why the Dodo bird and the dinosaur have more reason to survive in western Canada than this bunch across the floor. They have spent $780 million to try to save the Minister's seat, and have cut off rail transportation between the largest city in western Canada and Edmonton. Mr. Speaker, it is obscene what the Government has done to those communities. I invite the Minister to tell the House a little truth instead of a little nonsense.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I can think of no one in the House who is better able to comment on Dodo birds than the Hon. Member, seeing as he has to look in the mirror at one every morning. The fact of the matter is-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands.
May 14, 1984


SOCIAL SECURITY
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is responsible for such programs as medicare and old age Security. Last week, following the announcement by a Liberal leadership candidate that he would cut the deficit by some $15 billion, the Vice-President of the Bank of Nova Scotia said that this could only be accomplished by making major cuts to health care and post-secondary education, by putting a means test on old age pensions, and by imposing user fees for medical services. Since the Minister is supporting that particular Liberal candidate, what recommendations has she made as to which of these programs she would be willing to cut?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: That is a very bizarre question, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member, who, I thought, would accompany me at my request, knows very well that I just returned from Geneva where the World Health Organization's annual meeting was held, and from Brussels where I had the pleasure of signing the reciprocity agreement on pensions for Canadians and Belgians.
I think that is going to be my answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: I think it is important to talk facts, and maybe she should check her facts, because mine are the ones I have just stated.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I realize the Minister was out of the country, and I realize she would really like to duck this embarrassing question. However, with a statement like that and the concern it is causing around the country, the Minister cannot get away from facing up to this question. She has to recognize that the very person responsible for starting this country on its ruinous deficits is now trying to put the blame on social programs.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister willing, as is the leadership candidate she is supporting, to put the elderly and low income people in the front line of attack? Is that what she is all about?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for giving me a golden opportunity to remind her and her Party that this Liberal leadership convention is about defeating the Conservatives in the next election. Every candidate for the leadership is going to be elected by some of these people, the same Canadians who have a beautiful network of
Oral Questions
social programs. This is Canada; social programs are part of our social fabric, and we will never go back on that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, who will no doubt be aware of the very strong concern Canadians have, especially women, for the repeal of the discriminatory Section 12(1 )(b) of the Indian Act, and the reinstatement of native women and their first generation children. Would the Prime Minister not agree that equality for women is now entrenched in the Constitution of Canada through our Charter of Rights, and that accordingly the establishment of equal rights for native women must come first in the promised legislation so that native women will be able to take part in the evolution of native people's self-government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is stating a lot of correct facts about the Charter of Rights. Equality in every area should prevail over other laws, and that is the sense of the Charter. That is why we on this side hold that the Charter will and must prevail. The legislation itself is part of a whole movement by this Government to update its legislation so it will be in conformity with the Charter. But I would suggest that if, by chance, we could not pass the legislation-and the Government plans to do it-the Charter would still prevail.
I must point out to the Hon. Member that aboriginal rights are also part of the Charter. She is not unaware that there is a difference between the AFN, the Indian federation, and the other parties to the constitutional conference held in March on the way in which women will be given equal rights under the Indian Act. It is that debate which is taking a little bit of time. We want to assert and reassert in our legislation the principle of equality contained in the Charter, but we would prefer to do it in a way acceptable to the Indian people themselves in order to avoid any suspicion of paternalism. If we can succeed in doing it in a way which will get their assent, I think it is worth waiting a little while longer.


WOMEN'S ATTENDANCE AT EDMONTON CONFERENCE
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister responsible for the status of women. It concerns this very debate and the ability of women to take part on an equal basis.
The Minister will be aware that a conference among native peoples is opening tomorrow in Edmonton, and that native women's organizations have been seriously disadvantaged because they do not have the funding to attend it. Many women have had to borrow money, for example, in order to go

May 14, 1984
Oral Questions
at all. Would the Minister assure us that there will be at least enough funding for two women from each province to attend, and will she tell us what her Department can do to ensure that women can have a voice in this debate? Can she assure us that they will get the same kind of funding for legal advice and lobbying which the organizations putting forward the other view have received?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer the question and express my disappointment with some of those women who did not see fit to bring their problem to my attention until last Friday night. I was in my riding at the time and was unable to respond to them because, of course, offices close at five o'clock. In the meantime I set in motion a request through the office of the Secretary of State, and I understand there is some $50,000 available, and we are looking into that at the moment. I reiterate that I am very disappointed that they did not come forward to ask for this funding earlier. However, we will do our best to see that they get something to attend that conference.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can he indicate to the House exactly what process is followed if an individual is found in conflict of interest while employed in a Crown corporation? I refer specifically to Petro-Canada. Would the Minister give consideration to the dismissal of individuals found in conflict of interest?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there is a management board of Petro-Canada and they have to apply the normal business practice and government practice in situations of conflict of interest. Of course I do not know which problem the Hon. Member refers to, but if he tells it to me I will refer it to the chief executive officer to make sure the situation is corrected.


PURCHASE OF FURNITURE BY EXECUTIVES
Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, the chief executive officer is involved in the conflict of interest, along with the vice-president of human resources and corporate administration. I refer specifically to them using their position to purchase furniture from Petro-Canada at drastically reduced rates. I have copies of the sales agreement and the disposal forms. Will the Minister give consideration to referring this matter to the appropriate standing committee, or to the Auditor General, so that we can have a complete audit of the books? In the event a conflict of interest is found, as I can substantiate, will the Minister personally dismiss these individuals, as he is the one shareholder on behalf of all
Canadians and there is a considerable amount of taxpayers' money involved?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there is a board of directors of this company and I will refer the problem to the board, if there is a problem. I have not been informed of any such problems so far. I will ask my Deputy Minister, who is a member of the board, to look into the matter.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER ANNOUNCE BY-ELECTION DATES
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who will know that, pursuant to the provisions of the House of Commons Act, he is obliged to call a by-election for the constituency of Nepean-Carleton no later than May 18 of this year, which is this week. Can the Prime Minister tell the House and the country whether it is his intention to set at the same time by-election dates for the other four vacancies in the House of Commons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct in suggesting that, under the legislation, I will have to set a date for the by-election by May 18. I will take the Hon. Member into my confidence, and his Leader can listen, too, if he ever comes into the House. He was here a moment ago.


Mr. McKinnon:: No more cheap shots. Let's get on with it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I may be leaving, but I have certainly heard a lot of cheap shots from the other side regarding myself. I do not think the Hon. Member should be so thin-skinned when it comes to so-called cheap shots.


Mr. Jarvis:: McKinnon thin-skinned? Wrong guy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, whoever it was.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: It was I.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The problem I am faced with, Mr. Speaker, is that the other by-elections do not have to be called during the term that my writ runs. I am debating within my own heart the ethics of setting the dates for the others when they can be perfectly legally set by my successor when he assumes the exalted office of Prime Minister and bears the mantle with his customary dignity.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I, of course, do not indulge in partisan politics at any time-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -but I just want to tell the Prime Minister that there is not much chance of that crowd wearing the mantle in that way.
May 14, 1984


ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not think, when he canvasses his heart of hearts with respect to this weighty decision, that the residents of the other constituencies should have the earliest possible representation in the House of Commons, and that partisan considerations should be the very last of those things which the Prime Minister is going to canvass when he considers whether or not he should call all the by-elections now? The reasonable thing, it seems to me, is to call all the by-elections at one time so the people of Canada in those constituencies will get representation at the earliest possible date.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 will try to inspire myself with the Hon. Member's lofty feelings on non-partisanship. 1 would point out to him if there is such urgency, then announcing all the elections on the eighteenth would cause a whole series of by-elections to take place right smack in the middle of the Queen's visit. 1 know the Hon. Member and his Party have objected to that at previous times. I might just consider calling the by-elections slightly after the Queen's visit, in which case I have at least another month in order to decide when they should be called, and if 1 have another month then I may as well let my successor do it. Do you follow me?


Mr. Speaker:: One short supplementary. The Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm).


CROWN CORPORATIONS
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister clear up a concern of mine? On April 16 1 asked a question of the Minister responsible for de Havilland in this House, and responsible for the CDIC, about whether some interest program might be available in order that de Havilland could sell its aircraft domestically to the aircraft companies that want to buy them. The Minister advised me at that time:
-regulations on domestic and international trade are set under the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade.
Would the Prime Minister mind clarifying that? Are we not able to sell our own Canadian produced aircraft at de Havilland to Canadian aircraft companies that want to buy them because we are governed by GATT, or is it possible to meet Ireland's terms on interest of 7 per cent, as Senator Austin indicated on Canada AM we might be able to do? Who is right-Senator Austin in the other place, or the Minister in this place when he said we cannot compete because of GATT?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to refer to the Hon. Minister's answer as quoted by the Hon. Member. I am not in a position to say that I would
Introduction of Bills
agree with it, but I would point out to the Hon. Member that if he is suggesting we should sell our aircraft in Canada at a loss, then I think he should lobby among members of his own Party who have been ranting and raving about Canadair's loss, at least since I have been around. If you sell at a loss then you increase the debt. If you increase the debt, then you get the Hon. Member's Party complaining about it. I think they will perhaps have to consider the Hon. Member's question among themselves before addressing it to me.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: A very short supplementary Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member was already accorded a question.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Friday, May 11, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Introduction of Bills:
December 12, 1983-Mr. Taylor-Bill intituled: "An Act respecting the Execution of Clifford Robert Olson".
Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has given earnest consideration the admissibility of this Bill and has come to the conclusion that it is not procedurally in order.
According to our practice, there are only two kinds of Bills, Public and Private. Citation 700 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition explains that:
A public bill relates to matters of public policy while a private bill relates to matters of a particular interest or benefit to a person or persons.
This Bill clearly does not fall within the definition of a Private Bill as it cannot be said to promote the particular interest or benefit of the individual named in it. It can therefore only be a Public Bill although whether the execution of the individual concerned could be described as a matter of public policy may be open to question.
The conclusion of the Chair is that the Bill falls into a special category for which our practice does not provide. Its nature is that of a Bill of Attainder, a proceeding at one time employed by the British Parliament to convict and condemn an individual of a high crime by Act of Parliament. The Bill of

May 14, 1984
Order Paper Questions
Attainder is described at page 69 of the Twentieth Edition of Erskine May as "the highest form of parliamentary judicature", which would suggest that such a Bill is a Public Bill.
The procedure is an obsolete one in the United Kingdom and has not been employed since the 18th Century. It has never existed in the Canadian practice and I must therefore rule that the Bill is unacceptable.


Gordon Edward Taylor: In view of your comments, Mr. Speaker, I will not move second reading of this Bill, but I will place on the Order Paper another Bill that will meet your objections, I believe.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair thanks the Hon. Member.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 255, 256, 364 and 663.


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton): During 1983 were any real estate firms assigned sale contracts by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Peterborough to dispose of houses in Victoria-Haliburton and, if so, what (a) is a list of all such firms (b) amount of commission was paid to the firms?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation of the following:
In Victoria-Haliburton, in 1983, the properties offered for sale by CMHC were listed with various firms on a rotational basis and a 6 per cent commission paid on them.
(a) and (b) see below.
Firms Which Listed CMHC Properties in 1983 and Commission Earned
Listing
Agents
Amount of Commission
Re/Max

Howard Forder Ltd.
2,820
Bowes & Cocks
2,190
list of all the contractors (b) amounts were the contracts for (c) is a list of all the agents for the Program in these counties?


Roméo LeBlanc: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation of the following: Yes.
(a) and (b) see below.
(c) CMHC delivers the Rural and Native Housing Program in Haliburton and Victoria counties. However, the Rural Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program is delivered by the three agents listed below.
Elinor Burke, Clerk, Corporation of the Townships of Anson, Hiden and Minden; Darrell Stamp, Assistant Clerk, Municipality of Dysart et al; Phyllis Nelson, Victoria Housing Corporation.
RNH Contracts Awarded by CMHC in 1983 in Haliburton and Victoria Counties
Contractor
G. Elstone Construction Co. Ltd.
Broadworth Construction C.W. Hicks
Jim Johnston Contracting
A. & A. Homes Ltd.
Blairs Contracting
Culligan Water Conditioners
Fleming Homes & Cottages
Don James & Sons Sand & Gravel Excavating Ltd.
C.W. Hicks Trimrite Construction
Amount of Contract $374,860 (7 contracts) 11,665 8,412 3.540
4.400 (2 contracts) 17,599 (2 contracts) 1,523
147,895 (3 contracts) 3.680
6,123


Mr. St. Germain: 1.	Did the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation publish advertisements in Vancouver-area newspapers on November 30, 1983 and, if so, at what total cost?
2.	In the fiscal year 1983 did the Corporation spend any amount on advertising and promotion and, if so, what amount was spent in (a) British Columbia (b) Ontario (c) Quebec (d) all of Canada?


Roméo LeBlanc: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1.	Yes at a cost of $5,976.
2.	Yes. (a) $19,460, (b) $21,183, (c) $26,522, (d) $152,885.


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton): During 1983 were any contracts concluded by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Peterborough for work in Haliburton and Victoria counties under the Rural and Native Housing Program and, if so, what (a) is a


Mr. Knowles: In each month of (a) 1981 (b) 1982 (c) 1983 how many persons were in receipt of the spouse's allowance provided under the Old Age Security Act and
May 14, 1984

how many were (i) male (ii) female and, in each case, what average amount was paid to the younger spouse where both spouses were alive and what average amount was paid to the surviving spouse where the older spouse had died?


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: (a) Number of Persons in Receipt of the Spouse's Allowance-1982
(i) (ii)* Average Amount paid to Spouse's Allowance Recipient to the younger spouse
Number of Spouse's Allowance Recipients	where both spouse were alive	where the older spouse had died **January	86,961	$198.15	$ N/AFebruary	87,041	197.67	N/AMarch	87,103	197.14	N/AApril	74,084	202.92	N/AMay	80,218	198.07	N/AJune	83,884	195.48	N/AJuly	85,351	202.87	N/AAugust	85,334	201.90	311.72September	86,120	200.95	315.30October	86,512	209.58	330.06November	86,863	208.56	332.40December	87,134	208.03	334.94*(i) (ii) Information to indicate the sex of spouse's allowance recipients is not available on a regular basis. However, information compiled for the month of June, 1982 only, indicates there were 7,382 male and 76,502 female recipients of the spouse's allowance.	** The average amount paid to spouse's allowance recipients where the older spouse had died is available only from August, 1982.	(a) Number of Persons in Receipt of the Spouse's Allowance-1981	Number of Spouse's Allowance Recipients	(i) (ii)* Average Amount paid to Spouse's Allowance Recipient to the younger spouse where both spouse were where the older spouse alive had died **	January	85,175	$180.26	$ N/AFebruary	85,192	179.23	N/AMarch	85,179	178.94	N/AApril	73,861	186.11	N/AMay	79,996	181.63	N/AJune	83,468	179.01	N/AJuly	84,548	186.10	N/AAugust	85,398	184.97	N/ASeptember	85,880	184.05	N/AOctober	86,632	192.25	N/ANovember	86,744	191.32	N/ADecember	86,694	190.72	N/A*(i) (ii) Information to indicate the sex of spouse's allowance recipients is not available on a regular basis. However, information compiled for the month of June, 1981 only, indicates there were 7,178 male and 76,290 female recipients of the spouse's allowance.	
** The average amount paid to spouse's allowance recipients where the older spouse had died is available only from August, 1982.
Financial Administration Act
(a) Number of Persons in Receipt of the Spouse's Allowance-1983
(i) (ii)* Average Amount paid to Spouse's Allowance Recipient
Number of Spouse's Allowance Recipients	to the younger spouse where both spouse were alive	where the older spouse had diedJanuary	87,560	$212.84	$344.61February	87,537	212.62	347.35March	87,524	212.30	350.58April	76.531	213.91	311.74May	82,968	209.81	313.71June	85,646	208.12	318.28July	86,818	210.18	326.03August	87,336	209.59	329.60September	87.650	209.05	333.15October	87,948	213.36	342.01November	87.707	212.75	344.18December	87,638	212.42	346.66
*(i) (ii) Information to indicate the sex of spouse's allowance recipients is not available on a regular basis. However, information compiled for the month of June, 1983 only, indicates there were 7,451 male and 78,195 female recipients of the spouse's allowance.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet (for Mr. Gray) that Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to speak on Bill C-24 dealing with Canada's subgovernment. I refer to it in that way because this is a secondary

May 14, 1984
Financial Administration Act
bureaucracy which in the last year cost Canada $4 billion. This subgovernment costs the taxpayers of this country millions and millions of dollars each year.
I would like to give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of the type of things that have happened that have not been addressed effectively by this Bill. This subgovernment is permitted to create such things as letters of comfort. Letters of comfort are guarantees by the federal Government to Crown corporations. We still have not had an accounting of all the letters of comfort that may be outstanding. This matter is hidden from the taxpayers and it is not done with integrity. It is a dishonest practice and it cheats the Canadian public. Letters of comfort represent only one of the items in this Bill that have not been specifically addressed which would stop this spending spree by Crown corporations.
What we object to particularly regarding these letters of comfort is that they have never been approved by the Parliament of Canada. They have never been approved by Members of this House who represent the taxpayer. This practice has to be stopped and a provision to stop it must be put into this Bill. In the Bill Class C-l and Class C-2 corporations are required to submit corporate plans. There is nothing in this Bill indicating the form or the content. Anything that is required can be done by regulation by the Minister. This does not give us the facts. This can be dealt with differently by each Minister in this House and in the other place.
We are given little enough information about Crown corporations in committee, and we will not be given any more as a result of this Bill. The Minister of State for Social Development in the other place appears before us in committee but never gives us the facts. He never tells us the whole story. Today I read in the newspaper that the President of CDIC says that Canadair will make a profit this year. A magician could not make a profit from that company, the way it is today. I do not know who Joel Bell is kidding. Perhaps he does not expect to keep his job. I do not know the reason for coming out with public statements which are misleading. They are not telling us all the facts. If they ever consider taking a portion of the debt of Canadair, they would be unable to show a profit forever.
The Bill suggests that C-l and C-2 corporations should prepare operating and capital budgets for a five-year period. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray), however, can exempt any corporation he wishes. It is similar to the National Energy Program-everything looked fine until we reached the point where the final decision was in the hands of the Minister. We had that changed so that it had to go to the courts. We cannot take everything to the courts. We must deal with problems in the House of Commons. If we are to create three-year and five-year operational plans, they must be for everyone. They must be based on a standard format, and there cannot be exemptions for some corporations over others.
One of my major concerns is that even with this Bill Crown corporations will not be accountable to the Parliament of
Canada. That is very serious. Legislation must include accountability to the House and to Canada.
Also the Bill sets forth the duties of the officers and directors, but they will not operate in the same manner as any private sector corporation in Canada. Cabinet appoints the chief executive officer. Boards of directors in private corporations are elected to appoint chief executive officers. Cabinet establishes remuneration. Boards of directors in private corporations establish the remunerations of chief executive officers. Cabinet appoints the auditors, so that it can pay off its friends in accounting firms across the country. In private corporations, auditors are approved and suggested by boards of directors.


Mr. Kaplan:: The shareholders.
Mir. Fennell: They are not facing the facts. I see the Hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) walking out of the Chamber and I hear him making a joking remark. That is terrible. Some of his legislation is terrible, some of his actions are terrible. It is just another example of lack of accountability to the House of Commons.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Hon. Member has accused me of telling a joke. I was in fact simply reminding him that the auditors of a company are not picked by the directors but by the shareholders.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That is not a question of privilege.


Thomas Scott Fennell: He may say that it is the shareholders, but it is the board of directors that recommends the auditors. Then a shareholder stands and makes a recommendation. If it is the shareholders, every person in Canada should have the option of appointing an auditor and should have a voice as to who is on the board of directors, not just the Prime Minister of the country nor the Cabinet of Canada. It is attitudes like that which destroy the country. Those attitudes have hurt the country and destroyed the economy of Canada.
Furthermore, the Cabinet can direct the board of directors to pass certain by-laws. That is unheard of. It would be the same as shareholders directing the board of directors to pass certain by-laws. I have seen the types of by-laws passed in the House. I would not trust one. The board of directors would have to be awfully good friends of the Liberal Government to be able to endorse any by-laws recommended by that Government.
Our recommendation is that the board of directors should be totally independent of government. They should be appointed on their qualifications, not on their ideologies. This has to be changed.
They talk about comprehensive audits, but they can be modified by Cabinet. That is wrong. The Bill will not stop the proliferation of Crown corporations. They can set up a thousand subsidiaries. Why do they not look at Crown corporations on a joint venture basis? If we get the private sector involved with an entrepreneurial spirit and management skills, we will make them work.
May 14, 1984

Crown corporations are continually directed by public servants. A senior associate deputy minister of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion worked in Montreal for a number of years. He did not have the faintest idea of how a corporation operates or works for profit. The whole proliferation of Crown corporations has allowed spending by the Liberal Government on behalf of taxpayers, for which they will have to pay.
I realize that 10 minutes is a very short time, but I will conclude my brief speech by saying that we will put forth many amendments in committee. We will remove the smoke and mirrors in this Bill. We will recommend directors, not an advisory board but a pure board of directors. We will show that accountability is a prime concern of this Party.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an earlier opportunity to participate in the debate on this Bill which purports to be a Bill to assist government and Parliament, in particular, with respect to control over Crown corporations. The reason we are not supportive of this legislation is that it does not do what it pretends to do.
There is no change of government policy with respect to Crown corporations. There is only an alleged change in machinery. There is no real reform. There is no real acceptance of blame for what has happened in the past. We are all familiar with the state of affairs now revealed in Canadair and de Havilland, which show complete lack of control not only by Parliament but by the Government, or if the Government had any control or knowledge, then complete culpable negligence with respect to what happened in those corporations.
Historically the chief powers of Parliament have been powers over the spending of money, over the purse. However, that power has been completely eroded. We have to ask the following question: Why should the Government object to Hon. Members of the House having some real authority with respect to Crown corporations, not through pusillanimous standing committees of the House which have no powers, except such as are granted them by the majority or by the Government, not by make-believe committees? Why is the Government reluctant to give Members of this House some real authority and control? Why should Ministers of the Crown not welcome assistance of Members of this House with the task of controlling the bureaucracy? I forget the total number now in the Public Service, but it is in the area of
300,000	people. Ministers, certainly most of them in this Government, if not all

there may be one or two exceptions- are unable to know, understand or control what happens in their Department, except on the fringes. They have to trust the bureaucracy of the Public Service to advise them of what is happening.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) has a fantastically large and varied Department. He does not know what is happening in the interstices of that Department or what is happening in the airport at St. John's, Newfoundland, or whatever the issue might be. Why should a Minister object if
Financial Administration Act
this House helps him? Why should the Government object if committees of this House are given sufficient authority to start investigating and finding out for themselves what Government Crown corporations are doing?
If five years ago we had had a committee, either together with representatives of the other place or just a committee of this House, whose job it was to look into, investigate and raid the bureaucracy of the Crown corporations with the powers of subpoena, investigation and summoning witnesses, and if such a committee had looked at de Havilland or Canadair, I venture to say that this country may well have saved hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, to which we are now committed. Even if conscious decisions were made to continue financing those corporations in such amounts and in such a way for such purposes, at least the public would have known about it years before they did know.
When I was Minister of Finance-it is true for a brief time just eight months-I had no time to consider what was happening with Crown corporations that were supposed to report to the Government of Canada. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker,
I was not lying around on my butt doing nothing. I worked at least 12 to 14 hours a day.


Mr. Tobin:: You had your kicks. That's it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Are you attempting to attack my butt? Is the Member interjecting with a butt? When the putative Minister of State for Youth becomes a Minister of State for Youth, we will listen to him with all the attention that that onerous and heavy responsibility will entail. In the meantime, the Speaker provided a nursery two or three years ago. That young man should go on to the nursery and deal with people of his own mental agility. By the way, I want the people in Corner Brook and Stephenville to know that these childish interjections are coming from their Member, soon to be ex-Member. The Member's name is Brian Tobin, if I might sneak that in for those now watching down on the west coast of Newfoundland.
When I was Minister of Finance, working as hard as I could, I had no time to consider what Crown corporations that reported to Finance were doing. I remember requests coming from de Havilland and Canadair which, by the way, we put a stop to. They were having the Government guarantee their borrowing. This never came to anyone's attention because they were doing it by letters of comfort.
It was felt to be all right for the Government to give financial concerns lending money to those companies letters of comfort, saying that the Government knew about the loans and would stand behind these corporations. That never came before Parliament or the House of Commons. It did not receive public attention because it was not a formal guarantee. For years those companies were financed secretly behind the scenes. The directors appointed by the Government apparently did not feel they had to intervene or stop the ruinous course of those companies. They did not have adequate instructions.
This Bill is an utter failure. It is another piece of Government flatulence because it does not provide for any real control by people sitting in this House, both on the Government side

May 14, 1984
Financial Administration Act
and the Opposition side. We are pledged to do this, and I am sure we will. It has to be done in the first 12 months of our being in office because, after you have been in office more than 12 months, you become ministerial and you do not want Members of the House bothering you. You do not want these nuisances in the House giving you more work or adding to your burden, so it slips your attention.
In the first 12 months of our administration, we have to change this House fundamentally. One change would be to set up committees of this House with real authority. One of them must be a committee with full authority to check on what Crown corporations are doing or not doing, whether they are spending or not spending what they are supposed to be spending, whether they are having losses that the Government does not want to admit to or whether there are some embarrassments the Government wants to hide and is therefore shy about seeing them come to the public light.
I do not know how much longer I have; I understand it is two minutes. In 1968 there were 38 federal Crown corporations with $5.5 billion in assets recorded in the public accounts. Today there are 186 Crown corporations. The federal Government owns more than 50 per cent of the shares in 34 other companies and less than 50 per cent in 72 other companies. We have one in Newfoundland, Fishery Products International Limited, of which my brother is the interim chairman. They have chosen wisely with respect to the interim chairman, but I would like to see him checked by Members of this House. I often had to check upon him when I was in business with him. Entrepreneurs need someone to check on them. They need the heavy hand laid on them every now and then.
While I am pleased and delighted that my brother is the interim chaiman of Fishery Products International Limited, it does not lessen my concern that Members of this House and the committee of this House should have the right to see exactly how they have done, what their plans are, what their losses might be and to report back to this House.
It is my information that today federal Crown corporations have $67 billion in assets and $57 billion in liabilities. That is why I want to move an amendment to the order of second reading of this Bill. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to
Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be not
now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months'
hence".
I do not know if this gives me unlimited time. I hope the rules provide me with unlimited time to speak to the reasons for bringing in the six months' hoist. The legislation now-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. First I should tell the Hon. Member that his time has expired. The motion is in order. I will read the motion to the House:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence".
The seconder to the motion is the Hon. Member for Hillsborough. For debate, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, if there is need to underscore why we want a six months' hoist, it is obviously contained in the fact that we are dealing with a Bill, as the Auditor General has mentioned to all Canadians, that is becoming a dangerous sub-layer of Government expenditure. When we look at the fact that Crown corporations are now spending some $4 billion annually, when we recognize that this expenditure is on behalf of Canadians generally and when we recognize that this expenditure is not accountable to Parliament itself, the fact is that we end up with government without representation. Taxpayers' dollars are being spent without the ability of the representatives of the taxpayers to influence how the money is handled or accounted for or is in any way deliberated upon.
As mentioned by my friend, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), we need to have a parliamentary committee with full authority to question the right of every Crown corporation to exist. The fact is that today we see a proliferation of Crown corporations without ever once asking if, after a Crown corporation is formed, it should continue to exist. Crown corporations that were formed in the middle part of the century still exist and this is justified simply by the fact that they existed last year. Year after year Crown corporations continue to grow. More Crown corporations continue to be added until the totem pole grows taller and taller like Pinocchio's nose. Never once do the representatives of the people have a chance to question why those corporations exist.
What is needed is a committee which is independent of the Government and independent of the Cabinet, one which can call before it every witness it wants, a committee which can subpoena witnesses, swear them to oath and make the representatives of Crown corporations establish that the corporations should either exist or vanish. If a Crown corporation cannot prove to the satisfaction of the committee and therefore the representatives of the citizens that it is either the most efficient agency for doing a specialized task or that an important task would not be done if the corporations were not committed to doing it in the best interests of the public, then that Crown corporation should cease to exist.
What we have today, Sir, is uncontrollable growth without having any mechanism in place to cause the cessation of that growth. The debt of the nation is continuing to grow. In 1976 the Auditor General signalled his alarm and he did so again in 1983. The Auditor General told us that he was dangerously concerned about the unchecked growth of Crown corporations. There are no principles to guide us when a Crown corporation is born or when it dies. Crown corporations are created at
May 14, 1984

pleasure and without accountability. That is the unfortunate fact of today.
We find ourselves in a situation where, if Crown corporations are to be at public cost, they must also become a public responsibility. It is important that a mechanism to create that responsibility be put in place. Bill C-24 does not lend itself to the provision of Parliament's accountability. It does lend itself to the convenience of Cabinet so that Cabinet may continue to appoint at pleasure and ask for accountability only if Cabinet wants accountability. The Bill does not allow for an individual committee of Parliament to call a Crown corporation into question if it recognizes that some concern does exist.
I ask rhetorically why the Agriculture Committee should not, in some future year, call into question the Crown corporation of Canagrex? Why would it not be appropriate to bring before that committee the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, for example, to ask whether or not the marketing of beef products was being carried out in a way which was in the best interests of the producers? Why could the committee not, on behalf of the citizens of Canada, put the management of that corporation on the spot and ask it to account to the public as to whether or not the agency was serving the public and serving it well?
I ask rhetorically why groups like the Alberta, Ontario or Quebec swine breeders' associations, groups that do an excellent job of marketing their pork products privately in the Third World, should not be able to ask Canagrex whether or not it is interfering with their own private initiatives and whether or not that interference is counter-productive to the over-all wellbeing of the nation? If the corporation cannot answer satisfactorily to such a committee, the committee ought to have the power to redress the corporation and to bring it into line with the proper management and marketing techniques which are in the best interests of all Canadians, whether it be through that agency or through the private sector.
In 1976 the Auditor General first warned Canadians that Crown corporations were starting to grow up around the Government. At that time he said that weak and ineffective control of public spending through Crown corporations is a dangerous threat to the Canadian people. By 1983, Sir, only six years later, the Auditor General said in his report of 1983:
Parliament is becoming further isolated from an increasing portion of government activities. The growing practice of using Crown-owned corporations to conduct a widening range of government activities has so strained the capability of the existing accountability framework that Parliament may not be able to exercise its fundamental responsibility for overseeing receipts and expenditures of public funds.
That is the most damning comment about a government that could be made by any public servant. He said in effect that we are losing control of the purse strings of the country.
Today, as compared with the figures in 1962, Crown corporations have increased some 250 per cent. In 1962 there were only 28 Crown corporations. I submit that to me, that would seem like a lot even today. Yet the facts are that the Government is involved in more than 300 Crown corporations. I can attest to that because of an answer I received to a question
Financial Administration Act
that I put on the Order Paper. The fact is that the Government is either wholly or partially involved in some 400 agencies, many of which are Crown corporations. The truth of the matter is that that whole sub-layer about which the Auditor General is concerned is hidden from the public and from Parliament with no control or checks, yet it sucks upon the people's money.
The taxpayers must pay for an enormous debt load which is created by people who are appointed at the pleasure of the Government. Usually these people are not appointed for reasons of skills or abilities but because they come from the kingdom of Gritdom. They serve on all of these boards because they are Grits. Crown corporations, like the Senate, are used as a place of reward. All we ask, Mr. Speaker, in light of democratic principles, is that accountability come into place.
Today, Mr. Speaker, Crown corporations are hiring some
265,000	persons. That figure, Sir, is greater than the number of working persons in Edmonton and Calgary combined. I say that to point out the growth of Crown corporations. Certainly people in western Canada will know that if within the Crown corporations of the nation are employed as many people as are employed in those two major cities of Alberta, then obviously Crown corporations have grown far beyond the capacity of the nation to endure that unfortunate fact without question.
I see, Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that my time is up. I have only commented on two pages of notes out of the ten pages which I had prepared. Obviously, it is only the time which has gone, not the issue. Therefore, I will sit down out of respect for that regulation.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words about the whole question of Crown corporations and accountability. The accountability of Crown corporations to Parliament, and through Parliament to the public, is a question that concerns everyone. Indeed, it was a matter which was regarded with some urgency and importance by the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. That Committee made recommendations with regard to the accountability of Crown corporations which I would recommend to Members who are interested in this issue.
The whole question of accountability of Crown corporations has long been an interest of mine, coming as I do from a company town-the company being the Canadian National Railways. I have had experience with Crown corporations for a long time and I am as interested as anyone else in making Crown corporations accountable. I would like to see them made accountable so that they could work better for Canadians and for the well-being of the country.
I am not against Crown corporations in principle or against public ownership in principle, as are many of my Conservative colleagues to the right. That is often the hidden motivation for some of the criticisms they make.

May 14, 1984
Financial Administration Act
With respect to the comments which have been made regarding committees needing more power to examine Crown corporations, I quite agree. In my opinion, one of the great weaknesses of the parliamentary system is the lack of power and the lack of independence of committees. The Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure made some recommendations in that direction. If the Government had been serious about parliamentary reform and about greater accountability, it could have seized that opportunity and implemented those recommendations. That would have gone some way toward increasing accountability. But we did not see that kind of movement on the part of the Government.
The reforms that were in the last package of parliamentary reform have not succeeded in increasing accountability. To simply have annual reports of Crown corporations referred to committee without any change in the independence of those committees, without any significant increase in the power of those committees and, finally, without any change in the whole way in which committees are dominated by Party discipline, is to have in the final analysis no improvements in accountability at all. Those are the areas that we have to look to if we are really interested in accountability.
I would like to address some of the points raised by my Conservative colleagues regarding accountability, as they have a lot to say about it. I am going to take it for granted that when it comes to accountability in Crown corporations, or for that matter accountability period, the Liberal Party and the Liberal Government are beyond redemption in this respect. They have given government such a bad name, and given Crown corporations such a bad name, that it has made life difficult for those of us in the New Democratic Party who believe that Crown corporations can be used as a positive and efficient instrument for the social and economic well-being of the country.
I would like to look at the Tory position for a moment. There seem to be a couple of contradictions in that position. On the one hand, the Tories want to argue that Crown corporations ought to act in a truly economic way-that is, in the narrow sense of the word "economic"-and that there ought to be no political dimension to economic activities; that economic activities abide by certain laws which are outside the realm of political and social consideration. I would ask the Tories how they intend to reconcile this view of economic activity which they traditionally have with the injection of the political dimension, vis-a-vis more accountability, into the running of Crown corporations? Either they should admit that they are wrong about what constitutes economic activity and about the narrow view of economic activity which they have, or they should admit that they are trying to set up a process whereby biased scrutiny, rather than accountability in the best spirit of the word, is made possible. In other words, they want accountability not to increase the effectiveness of Crown corporations, but so that they can have more forums for attacking Crown corporations on principle as an instrument of social and economic policy. I invite my Conservative colleagues to address that question.
I would like to comment on the speech of the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone). He spoke about taxation without representation. He spoke about taxpayers' money being spent without any accountability. If we want to talk about accountability, we must be consistent. We want accountability of all money that is spent that belongs to taxpayers. My problem with the Conservative Party is that it wants accountability for all the money which is being spent by Crown corporations, but it does not want accountability for the money which is being spent by private corporations in the form of tax incentives and tax expenditures. Billions of dollars are given to the oil companies and the Conservative Party says: "Just let them have the money and they will do what they want with it. We trust their judgment. We do not want any accountability there". They do not say: "Make the CPR accountable for the decisions which it makes with respect to the well-being of the country".
The NDP is at least being consistent when it talks about accountability. We want all of the major economic actors in the country to be accountable to the public good, not just the Crown corporations while leaving the multinationals to do as they please. That is the Conservative position. Why do we not see consistency in the Conservative Party when it comes to accountability? Why do they never rise to criticize the multinational corporations? We in the NDP do not make any distinction. If Petro-Canada does something which we believe is wrong, we rise and say so. If the CNR does something which we believe is wrong, we rise and say so. The NDP is not intimidated by ideology in this respect. We think that everyone should be made accountable. But the Conservatives never get up and criticize the multinationals or the private sector in this respect.
When the day comes that the Progressive Conservative Party stands up and demands comprehensive accountability for economic decisions of major significance which are taken in this country, then we will know that it is serious about accountability and is not just grinding its usual ideological axe when it comes to public ownership.
The question of accountability, as I have stated, is one with which all Members ought to be concerned. I know that the public is concerned with it. People have a sense, as was said earlier, that there is a kind of sub-layer of government. It is something which we must address as a Parliament if we want Parliament to continue to be perceived as perforing its traditional role of holding the government accountable for its expenditures. We will not get there by having one-sided views of accountability such as was put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, or ideas of no accountability, which is what the Liberals have been about for so many years. We will only get it when we get people who are interested in comprehensive accountability.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the only problem the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) has with the Conservative Party is that the Conservative Party will make sure that he does not return to this House after the next election. In speaking to accountability, he would
May 14, 1984

know that private corporations on the stock market are accountable to that marketplace.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is not the public.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: He says the marketplace is not the public. Somehow the New Democratic Party makes the New Democratic Party the public. The public knows where the New Democratic Party stands. The polls have revealed where the New Democratic Party stands-somewhere below the radar screen. There is not much that the NDP can add to this debate because it does not have much to add for the public of Canada, and that is the reason it is falling so far behind.
I join this debate again because I think it is time that Parliament reconsidered the whole purpose of the Bill. It should be referred to committee for an understanding of where we are going on Crown corporations and not be passed. The Bill should be withdrawn at the present time and there should be a House of Commons study as to where we should be going in connection with the management of our many, many Crown corporation investments.
On May 11 the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) indicated that he was going to produce a directorate with respect to Crown corporations. He indicated at that time that all of a sudden he had found another six brand-new Crown corporations. The other day, Sir, I was reading the financial statement of the Canadian National Railway Company for 1983, and on page 5 are listed consolidated companies owned by Canadian National. These are the companies which are consolidated into the Canadian National balance sheet. There are 46 companies consolidated into what is called the Canadian National Railways. There are 46 separate Crown-owned corporations as subsidiaries of Canadian National Railways. Not only that, Sir, but Canadian National Railways has joint operating agreements, or joint investment agreements, with another 23 corporations. That is a total of 69 corporations where the Government of Canada, through the Canadian National Railways system, is involved in the management of the affairs of this country. Bill C-24 does not deal with that kind of proliferation. It does not deal with a method whereby the people of Canada, the Government of Canada, the Parliament of Canada, or anyone can get a handle on what is happening in Canadian National Railways.
We have received a statement from Petro-Canada. Going over that statement, we find that Petro-Canada Products Inc. is the new name for BP Refining and Marketing Canada Limited, but the statement indicates that BP still exists. Then there is Petro-Canada Enterprises Inc. Then there is Petrofina Canada Inc. Then for some reason we see this statement: "Canertech Inc. was incorporated by the corporation as a wholly-owned subsidiary company to develop alternate energy sources in Canada". We got into the oil business to make sure that we Canadians had some window on the oil industry. That was the explanation given in this House. The explanation had nothing to do with alternate sources of energy. Yet this
Financial Administration Act
company, which was incorporated to make sure that Canada had a solid window on the oil industry, an ability to be self-sufficient in oil, has all of a sudden decided that it should be the vehicle of the Government for alternate energy. Under no circumstances, Sir, was this intended when that corporation was brought before this Parliament. Yet that is what has happened.
We amalgamated a series of bankrupt railways in order to make sure that Canada had adequate rail transporation. Now we have that company involved in trucking, in running buses, in running various kinds of express services, and in managing and operating hotels. We have an oil company we incorporated for the purpose of making sure Canada could be self-sufficient in oil and it is offshore exploring throughout the world in order to develop the resources of Jamaica and China. It is working to develop alternate sources of energy. Many of the purposes for which it was incorporated are not being handled, and it is on another exploration kick of its own, doing its own thing, growing, creating, proliferating; and that is where the problem is.
When the President of the Treasury Board brought before us his new directorate, he surely must have understood that that new directorate and where we stand ought to be a first consideration of Parliament before Parliament deals with legislation putting some corporations under Schedule A, some under Schedule B and some under Schedule C.
The scheduling alone in Bill C-24 is totally inadequate. There is no rationale for why some companies are in one schedule and some companies are in another schedule. Nor is there any rationale for why a company should be incorporated for a new purpose by a motion and a seven-hour debate-and that is all-whereas a subsidiary company can be incorporated with just Governor in Council, Order in Council arrangements.
The whole concept of this Bill is to mask and allow these corporations, these Crown-owned investments, to expand and spend and regulate and control the assets of the people of Canada without any real return to the people of Canada in terms of a return on investment. This condition must cease. Parliament must get a grip on the corporations which Parliament and this country presently own. We do not know really whether the figure which the President of the Treasury Board declared on May 11 is correct. We do not really know to what extent we own these corporations and where we are going with them.
I asked the other day what Mingan Associates Ltd. is. I see that our research indicates that Mingan Associates happens to be a private fishing camp. Is it not interesting that the people of Canada should own a private fishing camp? San Sebastiano is a corporation which owns land occupied by Canada's embassy to the Vatican. Why do we have these corporations? And why have we not had until now a proper explanation of them?
To present this Bill in the fashion in which it has been presented and then for the President of the Treasury Board to make the release he did on Friday last, is an affront to this Parliament. On that basis, Sir, it is only proper that this Bill

May 14, 1984
Financial Administration Act
be hoisted for six months, that Parliament investigate the whole question of the control of Crown corporations. Then Parliament will be able to determine whether this legislation, or some other legislation, is more appropriate for the control and management of Canada's investments.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Bill C-24 and our suggested amendment to hoist it for six months.
I feel the purpose of this legislation, namely, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, does not address the main problems we have today. I believe that was made very evident by some of the statements we have heard already this afternoon, particularly those made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). I was somewhat amused, Mr. Speaker, when he said-and I am quoting as precisely as I can remember-"When a Crown corporation does something, we criticize it in the NDP Party". 1 would like to suggest that the number of criticisms which that Party has brought forward with respect to Crown corporations would not fill the back of a postage stamp.
It is as a result of Crown corporations that most of the citizens in Canada today are somewhat upset. One does not have to look very far among the 400 or 500 Crown corporations which exist today to find horrendous nightmare stories of bad management, waste and taxpayers' dollars going to programs which cannot be cost justified. The most alarming of all the things we have talked about here today is the fact that Crown corporations are not accountable. We have no way of scrutinizing many of the actions which take place.
We are trying to save aircraft industries in Canada today because we need the jobs. We need the jobs at de Havilland and Canadair. We are negotiating through a Crown corporation for cutbacks in union employee benefits and salaries in order that those factories can be sustained. In the past fiscal year the management of those Crown corporations received bonuses of some $155,000. In the private sector one would not think of paying a bonus to corporate directors who have successfully ended up in the red. To get a bonus in the private sector you must end up in the black. However, that is not true with Crown corporations such as de Havilland.
We have put some $700 million into de Havilland in order to assure the jobs of some 2,900 employees, plus another
10,000	employees in other spin-off industries. Yet we cannot get money from the Government of Canada at 7 per cent interest in order to sell the aircraft that we have invested $700 million to produce. What is the economy in that kind of program by any Crown corporation? There is not any sense at all in building aircraft and then neglecting to make the marketing facilities available in order to be able to sell them. If we cannot sell Dash-8s to Canadian companies, how do we expect to sell Dash-8s abroad?
A company from Ireland has come into Canada to sell 36-seat aircraft the same size as the Dash-8. The Dash-8 is a better aircraft but it is the same size. The one from Ireland flies more economically from point A to point B. It is offered to any Canadian aircraft industry that wants to buy it at some $2 million less per aircraft.
The Minister responsible for CDIC said in the House of Commons that we are selling domestic aircraft in Canada and that comes under GATT. That is not the case. It has no bearing at all on the interest of getting these aircraft into the market. We can sell Canadian-built aircraft to any Canadian aircraft purchaser without fear of GATT. As late as today in the House of Commons the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) confirmed that the information was false and that GATT does not affect domestic sales. The Minister says one thing in the House about the Crown corporation he is responsible for. Senator Austin from the other place appeared on Canada AM last week and said that we must find some form of interest assistance. He talked in terms of 2 per cent. 1 am not sure whether he was talking about 2 per cent over prime. If he was, we will never sell the aircraft because 2 per cent over prime today is prohibitive. However, he was talking about an interest assistance program.
That is one of the disadvantages of having Ministers in the other place. We have Ministers in the House responsible for Crown corporations and we have Ministers responsible for certain forms of social development in the other place. We have to listen to Canada AM and The Journal to find out what is going on there. By and large Crown corporations have not been that responsible. People are very concerned about the money which is being dumped into these Crown corporations.
1 will take a moment to discuss another situation which is a major concern in all of Canada. We like to think that we have a window on the oil industry and that we, as Canadian people, own Petro-Canada. It is discouraging to read in the newspaper about how Petro-Canada joins forces with the other seven sisters in the oil industry to enter into long-term, 15-year reciprocal trade agreements, thereby hauling from each other at the refinery gates. Gulf, Shell, Imperial Oil, Suncor or Petro-Canada, both of the latter the people's oil companies, are hauling from each other at the refinery gates. If that is not controlling the product at the source, if that is not allowing, as has been pointed out before the combines investigation committee, these oil companies, one of which is our own Petro-Canada, to control the price at the refinery gates, I do not know what is. Then Petro-Canada tells its dealers that it is going to own their inventory under the ground. It tells them it will pay them a commission when they pump the product through the nozzle into the car. That enables them to set the retail price as well.
Why is gasoline selling east of Peterborough today for 33 cents a litre when you pay 48 cents a litre for regular gasoline in Ottawa, and in some cases more? Why is it possible to haul large tank wagon loads of petroleum products out of the same refinery gates and dump them at varying prices as you drive down the highway? From my 15 years' experience in the oil
May 14, 1984

industry I can tell you it is possible because the prices are controlled at the refinery gates. We have a Crown corporation known as Petro-Canada which is a party to that conspiracy. Mr. Speaker, I do not use that word lightly. It was used by government investigators when they appeared before the oil pricing commission investigating combines as they pertain to the oil industry. There cannot be a fair marketing atmosphere when government Crown corporations are entering into longterm reciprocal agreements with other major oil companies in the private sector.
We all know that Air Canada is a Crown corporation. We know that it is competing in the private sector. When we set up Air Canada, as we did the CBC, we did so to enable ourselves to supply services and product, as the case may be, in areas which the private sector could not serve as well. Today we have government administering businesses and competing in the private sector with subsidized tax allowances from the people in order to do this.
In conclusion, whenever we have this kind of legislation we must be very careful that it is protecting the consumer. I do not think there is sufficient control spelled out in Bill C-24 to ensure that Crown corporations will become accountable to government or Parliament, not to the Minister but to all Members of Parliament, in order that we can properly scrutinize their activities and hold them accountable to the Canadian people.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this motion to put this Bill over for six months. I am convinced that the Bill, as framed, is the Government's attempt to soothe Canadians and to fool them into believing that this Bill will bring the mass proliferation of Crown corporations under control. The fact of the matter is that it simply will not bring them back under control. Until we have a new government with a new cabinet approaching all of these problems from a new perspective, we will just have more of the same.
You will recall, Sir, that when I spoke earlier in the debate I pointed out that for a period of 100 years, from 1800 to 1930, there were not more than one dozen Crown corporations created. During the whole depression period there were only four or five created. During the wartime period, a time of great need, there were only about 30 Crown corporations created. For a period of some 20 years after the war we had maybe four or five Crown corporations created. Since the present Cabinet was sworn in we have come into what we call the proliferation period during which time there have been virtually hundreds of Crown corporations created. Under the guise of Canadianizing, we have borrowed money on the foreign market and bought back existing Crown corporations which were operating in the country.
The result is that Canadians owe $76 billion to foreign lenders. That probably puts us into a worse category than Mexico or many of the other Third World countries which are
Financial Administration Act
in very deep trouble today. We have absolutely destroyed our potential to become the leader in the world.
I want to give an example of one company, Petro-Canada, which is an abuse of the ordinary taxpayer, our uncles, aunts and friends, people who are at the end of the shovel and who believe that governments should do what is right. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal Cabinet has breached the fiduciary responsibility they have to the people of this country. When the Cabinet set up that Crown corporation they borrowed money in foreign markets to give tax breaks to Petro-Canada which other corporations could not take advantage of. One of the senior deputy ministers was on the board of Petro-Canada and they put through a special debenture to take advantage of a tax loophole and the Government closed the loophole within 10 days so no one else could take advantage of it. That is how they financed Petro-Canada.
Petro-Canada then went out and took over Atlantic Richfield, Pacific Petroleum and Petrofina. They paid far more than the market would have dictated, which created an enormous benefit to the shareholders of those companies. They then used the money, not to build plants or anything like that and create jobs, but to buy government treasury bills. They made an absolute killing at 19.5 per cent of that fiscal year, 1981-82 or 1982-83, rather than create jobs.
There are the 100 per cent owned subsidiaries of Petro-Canada, Mr. Speaker. Arctic Pilot Project Inc., Canertech Inc., under which you have Canertech Conservation Inc., Pacific Enercon Ltd., Mechron Energy Ltd., 107744 Canada Inc., Omnifuel Gasification System, Petro-Canada Consulting Corporation, which is now inactive, and Petro-Canada Inc.. Under that we have Asher American, Inc., Big Eagle Oil & Gas Ltd., Aquilla Holdings Ltd., and Fifth Pacific Stations Ltd. They say that company is now inactive but remember as I list these corporations they each have to have a president, a board of directors and secretaries. These people are not there for the creation of new wealth or the finding of new oil; they are there to sustain the infrastructure, the bureaucracy. When the oil and gas industry, those 700 companies that were owned by our fellow citizens, come in and tell us that at one time they had three geologists and one accountant on their staff and now they have three accountants and one geologist, they are telling us the truth. That is how we have destroyed the oil industry.
Some more subsidiaries, Mr. Speaker: GMI Co. (Bahamas) Limited. What is Petro-Canada doing in the Bahamas? Opal Oils Limited, under which we have Commodore Oils Limited, First Pacific Stations Ltd., Second Pacific Stations Ltd., Third Pacific Stations Ltd., and Fourth Pacific Stations Ltd.. That reminds me, Mr. Speaker, that when Petro-Canada bought Petrofina it paid twice the market value for a few oil and gas leases and 1500 service stations, most of which are too close to Petro-Canada's own stations, and they are having to sell them. But Petrofina got to keep the petrochemical plant, which is where the future of the oil industry is. It is not the retail pump, it is in the petrochemical plant. Petrofina was paid double the market value of the shares and they got to keep the most important part of their operation. It is a criminal act.

May 14, 1984
Financial Administration Act
Then we have Pacific Pipelines, Inc., Pacific Petroleums (Overseas) Limited, Petro-Canada Drilling Inc., Petro-Canada Enterprises Inc., and under that we have Independent Fuels & Lumber Ltd., Joseph Elie Limitee, Marc Dufresne (1979) Inc., Petro-Canada Chemicals Inc., Petro-Canada Petroleum Inc. Under that is Arctic Islands Resources Ltd., Petro-Canada Ventures, Prairie Leaseholds Ltd., Prairie Minerals Ltd., and Xychem Inc.
Then we have a bunch of them incorporated by numbers. They have so many they cannot find names for them. First is 106616 Canada Inc., 106617 Canada Inc., 106618 Canada Inc., 106619 Canada Inc., 106620 Canada Inc. and 106621 Canada Inc. All of these are incorporated companies sitting on the shelves ready to go.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) goes over to Indonesia he will tell them: "We will send Petro-Canada over to help you". They will then activate one of these companies and the taxpayers' dollars pay for it. Ordinary Canadians will then have less money to spend; it will be taxed away from them. There are seven separate federal taxes applied to oil from the time it leaves the ground until the time it gets into your gas tank. That is wrong. It is a tax grab and it leaves less money for the individual to decide how to spend. My view, Mr. Speaker, is that I will decide how to spend my money and I am not going to give it to a bunch of Grits over there to spend it. Canadians are coming around to that view and they are going to have to defeat individual members in order to get this changed.
There are more companies, Mr. Speaker. We have Petro-Canada Espanola S.A.. We are drilling in Spain. Petro-Canada Norway A/S. What are we doing in Norway? Petro-Canada Oil and Gas Inc., Petro-Canada Products Inc., Petro-Canada Resources Inc., Petro-Canada (U.K.) Limited. I guess we are drilling in the United Kingdom. Petroleum Transmission Company, Petron Petroleum Ltd., Rocair Limited, TriMountain Petroleums Ltd., Value Serve Stations Ltd. We have Venezuelan Canadian Oils, which was confiscated from them by Venezuela, by the look of it. We have Venezuelan Pacific Petroleums, 103912 Canada Inc., and then we have Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation. Those are companies owned 100 per cent, and I have a list here of subsidiaries held at 50 per cent to 99 per cent, and associates held at less than 50 per cent. It goes on for page after page.
If the Liberal Cabinet wanted to put up its own money to set up this corporation, I would have no trouble at all with that. But they are using your money and mine, Mr. Speaker, and they are not using it responsibly according to the trust the Government owes to the governed.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is time we had a look at Crown corporations. I am delighted that we have had a suggestion and a motion, if accepted, that this Bill be given a six-month hoist.
You may or may not remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Government, at about the same time it produced Bill C-24, put forward a brochure entitled New Legislative Proposals for the
Control and Accountability of Crown Corporations. The opening paragraph is revealing in that it says the federal Government believes that new measures are now required to strengthen the control and accountability of its Crown corporations. This can best be done by clarifying the roles and responsibilities of Parliament, the Government, boards of directors and managers of Crown corporations.
What does the Government do? The next paragraph tells us what the Government is going to do. It is going to amend the Financial Administration Act in order to strengthen the controls and accountability of Crown corporations. The Government is going to amend the Financial Administration Act, Mr. Speaker? I ask you, surely there should be what is known in French as la loi cadre; I do not know whether we have the same term in English. That is an acceptable term in legislative proceedings in France. It is a law which provides the base on which further constructions can be erected. It seems to me there ought to be la loi cadre for Crown corporations. Goodness knows, there are enough of them flying around. My friend, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), listed at least some of the subsidiaries of Petro-Canada. Incidentally, he stole a bit of my thunder, Mr. Speaker, because I was going to do that. However, they are on the record and we may come back to them.
It strikes me that amending the Financial Administration Act is quite the wrong way to go about dealing with such an important aspect of Canada's economy today. Goodness knows, it needs amendment, but there should be a basic Crown Corporations Act as there once was, I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my earlier intervention during second reading of Bill C-27. It might very well have served as a better model for la loi cadre for Crown corporations.
I do not know for sure whether you have had a chance to look at this Bill, Sir. It is quite lengthy. It deals with the Crown corporations in a most extraordinary way. By rewriting in one particular place, it removes Part VIII of the existing Financial Administration Act, which is entitled "Crown Corporations" or "corporations de la couronne", and replaces it with another section which is called Part XII, "Crown Corporations" in English or societes d'etat "in French. This is really an amendment. It appears in Bill C-24 following Part II in the Financial Administration Act. Then it goes from page five to page 53. The insert is the amendment, Part XII, which deals with Crown corporations. That in itself ought to be, if it contained all what the Government were planning to do and did it properly, la loi cadre.
It seems to me, and I think to all clear-thinking parliamentarians, that we should have a basic law for all Crown corporations, of which there are an innumerable quantity. I use the word "innumerable" deliberately because my friend, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), mentioned that there were some 49 subsidiaries to CN. I have just been counting through this document and I come up with something like 75. Therefore, "innumerable" is probably the right word
May 14, 1984

to apply to the number of Crown corporations that exist. I think there should be a basic law on which we can hang the incorporation or creation of new Crown corporations. I find it most offensive that one of the largest Crown corporations should have come into existence even before the amendment to the Crown corporations notion through the Financial Administration Act has been voted upon in Parliament.
Two years ago, Mr. Speaker, you may recall that there was brought into being an instrument called the Canadian Development Investment Corporation. It was first incorporated on January 12, 1982. Now I see that Bill C-25, which is the Bill immediately succeeding Bill C-24, tries to put a little bit of legality, and parliamentary legality particularly, into this series of Orders in Council starting January 12, 1982. I suppose there could be one going through today for all we know, maybe taking over another Crown corporation.
On May 25, 1983, the CDIC legislation was given first reading in the House. There is a year and a half. That is extraordinary when you come to think of it. Here we are a year later and we still have not had the CDIC legislation brought before us for second reading.
There is some jiggery-pokery going on about Crown corporations. I think I mentioned on an earlier occasion I was rather surprised that the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) should have this sort of legislation brought forward to the House. His advisers are consultants in the matter of drafting legislation and he should have approved the legislation in this form.
This brochure that was issued in anticipation of the arrival of Bill C-24 mentions as well that the Government will be responsible for the strategic and budgetary decisions of all parent Crown corporations, and through them their wholly-owned subsidiaries, and for any directives the Government issues. These directives will be tabled in Parliament. That strikes me as being a far cry from the Crown corporation notion as it first came into being.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are signalling that my time is running out. However, Mr. Speaker, I would commend to you and to anyone interested in Crown corporations between now and six months hence, when we shall be examining this Bill again after committee hearings to look very carefully at the brochure issued by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) in March, 1984 entitled New Legislative Proposals for Control and Accountability of Crown Corporations. They are not legislative proposals for Crown corporations; they are amendments to the Financial Administration Act, which I think is quite the wrong way to proceed, Mr. Speaker.
Financial Administration Act



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell)-Indian Affairs-(a) Tabling of legislation to remove discrimination against women, (b) Position of Minister; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-Copyright-(a) Provision of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-material for schools, (b) Procedure followed in United States.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet (for Mr. Gray) that Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Crosbie (p. 3688).
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, once again I wish to say a few words on Bill C-24, and I support the amendment to put this matter over for another six months.
Of course, the purpose of the Bill is to amend the Financial Administration Act to provide greater Cabinet control over Crown corporations and to provide greater accountability to Parliament. That is a real task. As we have pointed out repeatedly, the Bill does not have enough teeth.
The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) referred to a recent document which was put out by the Treasury Board entitled Crown Corporations and Other Canadian Government Corporate Interests. Having looked through this publication, I find the number of Crown corporations and their subsidiaries to be almost unbelievable. It is a clear indication that there is absolutely no control of their growth. It seems that everyone sets up his own little Crown corporation.
In 1962, there were only 28 Crown corporations controlling $8.4 billion in assets. Today there are over 300; at least we think that is the figure. We really do not know because we cannot obtain an exact number. Today, these over 300 Crown

May 14, 1984
Financial Administration Act
corporations are supposed to be controlling $67 billion in assets.
The problem we have with Crown corporations is the lack of precise figures. Interpretation is an integral part of the problem. Assets change hands, responsibilities shift and lines of accountability are often difficult to trace.
1 should like to refer to the decentralization policy of the Government. It wants to move Crown corporations out of Ottawa. The way some officials of Government are talking, Ottawa will become a ghost town. I will deal with that shortly in more detail.
Many corporations are subsidiaries of other Crown corporations with more than 50 per cent of them federally owned or associates with 50 per cent or less federal ownership. They do not report directly to a government Department or a Minister of the Crown, let alone to Parliament. Employment in Crown corporations totals about 263,000 people. Federal Government Departments, by comparison, employ 239,000, not counting the 84,000 members of the Armed Forces. What is causing a lot of confusion in Ottawa with Crown corporations is the Government's decentralization policy. It wants to move Crown corporations and government Departments out of Ottawa. Some of the candidates for the leadership of the Liberal Party have stated that they will disband certain government Departments or Crown corporations. We do not know which ones. That is also causing much concern in the Public Service in the Ottawa area. It is making it most difficult for Crown corporations and others to function properly when they do not know whether they will be disbanded or moved.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) is a very strong supporter of decentralization. He is prepared to move many Departments and Crown corporations out of Ottawa. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) has said that he will do away with three government Departments. We do not know how many public servants will be losing their jobs with the decentralization plan, how many will have to move or how many will be able to move. There is no end to the concern in the Ottawa area. I hope we will receive some clarification or some clear-cut statements on how many public servants will lose their jobs, how many will have to move and how many will have to look for jobs in other Departments and so forth, because they are protected under the Public Service Act and do not have to move.
The householder which was distributed in Ottawa Centre by its author, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans), is also causing much confusion. He has clouded the issue considerably in this his latest householder. I picked one of them out of a trash can in the lobby of my apartment block. Perhaps after people read this document, it goes into the trash can. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre pointed out in this document the serious problem in the economy in the Ottawa area. He indicated how the Sparks Street Mall would be affected if Crown corporations are moved out of this city. I am sure Crown corporations are in a state of confusion right now. Many of them do not know what
to do with their employees. It is difficult to make any long-range plans.
Members of Cabinet and John Turner, who stated that he will cut $15 billion and do away with a lot of government Departments and public servants, should indicate which Crown corporations will be moved and which ones will be disbanded. That would help us in dealing with Bill C-24. Certainly it would be a great help to the Crown corporations. They rent space. They have contracts with local contractors and consultants. These vague and wild statements about emptying Ottawa and moving out government Departments and Crown corporations should be clarified.
It is very strange that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre has not explained John Turner's position in this document, as he is involved in his campaign. I hope there will be a clarification of the decentralization policy of the Government to the citizens of Ottawa Centre. They should know what will happen to them, which ones will be moved, how many will lose their jobs, and how many will be transferred. They cannot operate properly with these vague and wild statements of candidates going across the country trying to bribe voters. They say, "Vote for me and I will give you a Crown corporation", "We will move one to Winnipeg", "How would you like one in Newfoundland?", and "We will move everything out of Ottawa across the country and you will feel more at home in Canada". I hope the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre will clarify that for his constituents, the majority of whom are public servants.


John Leslie Evans: The majority are not public servants; that is how much you know.


An Hon. Member:: He knows much more than John Turner.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Of course, with regard to Mr. Turner, I cannot comment. Time will not allow me to cover all his positions. I simply do not have the time to deal with all his positions.
I see Mr. Speaker is giving me a signal. I hope the Hon. Member will clarify this for his constituents and correct the statements in his little booklet, which I picked out of a trash can. I hope the Government and the whole House will support a six-month hoist on this Bill.


Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, we have now had 78 speakers on this Bill. Bill C-24 is designed to try to deal with some of the problems of Crown corporations and to try to provide an accounting system for the House of Commons to get some control over them. What fascinates me in terms of this Bill, for which the Opposition has called, is the Opposition's determined opposition to the House of Commons getting control over Crown corporations.
I certainly understand the ambivalence of members of Her Majesty's Official Opposition. It is because when they were in power they were in power they were one of the most enthusiastic developers of the concept of Crown corporations. In point of fact, if we look back in history at people who put together
May 14, 1984

Canadian National Railways, we find that it was neither the Liberals nor the socialists. It was the Conservative Party.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: And the CBC.


John Mercer Reid: As the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) points out, the CBC and whatnot.


Mr. McDermid:: The Bank of Canada.


John Mercer Reid: The Bank of Canada as well.


John Horton McDermid: The National Film Board.


John Mercer Reid: Yes, the National Film Board. The issue that we are dealing with is not to question corporations, whether we should have them or not. We are going to have them. Her Majesty's Official Opposition likes them, supports them and uses them. We are not talking about eliminating Crown corporations. We are talking about bringing them under some form of parliamentary control. That is an entirely different matter.
Listening to the speeches of the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Blenkarn), Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) and other Members over there, I say, my God, there is no way one would know that that subject was being debated in the House of Commons. They talk about how evil Crown corporations are, how rotten Crown corporations are, and how destructive Crown corporations are. It is difficult to remember a time in the House when Members opposite have actually opposed in as rabid a fashion as they are opposing this Bill the establishment of any Crown corporation that we now have. The reason is simple. Crown corporations are a pragmatic response by governments in Canada to the peculiarities of the Canadian psyche, Canadian geography and our economic system.
If we want to do certain things, we have to mobilize capital in a big way. If we are going to mobilize it in a big way, normally we have government involvement. Take for example, the CPR. The CPR is the bastion of what the Conservative Party says is right about the free enterprise system. If one looks at the way in which the CPR is put together, one finds that it is the original Crown corporation put together by a 19th century government. Who was it that financed CPR? The CPR could never have built those railways had it not been for the funding that Sir John A. Macdonald's Government provided. He did not take equity. He took debt, and he provided grants. By and large, that is what Crown corporations are all about. The issue is not whether we will have Crown corporations. We are going to have them. We will have Crown corporations with the full support of the House of Commons.
What is the issue? Obviously the issue is how to bring them under control. How do we provide parliamentary control? How do we provide parliamentary input into control over and above that control which we now have and over and above the
Financial Administration Act
control which the Government has through the Cabinet to the Cabinet committees? That is what this Bill is about and that is what the subject of debate ought to be. The last two times the Bill has been debated, those issues have never been touched in a serious way by Her Majesty's Opposition. Instead, we have had catalogues of complaint about this, that and the other thing.
Let me give a few ideas, for which I take no credit. They were discussed in the special committee that looked into parliamentary reform. One issue that we examined in a very real way was the question of Crown corporations. How can Parliament get its finger on Crown corporations in a way that will be seen to be useful and effective? We have two problems.
First, you do not want to take Crown corporation inspections and investigations out from under the committee of the House of Commons that has relevance in that area. It would not make much sense to set up a special committee on Crown corporations, have the committee look at Air Canada, and not have the Transport Committee look at Air Canada as a Crown corporation as well. You cannot look at air transport in Canada unless you look at Air Canada. The consequence is that we have to find a way to look at Crown corporations in a way which would make some sense with regard to the role which they play in our economic system and in our governmental system, as well as look at Crown corporations as a vehicle in themselves.
We talked about how to accomplish this duality. How could you look at a Crown corporation as an instrument and an institution to see whether we had gone too far or whether the Crown corporation had expanded too far? How do we look at the issue of whether the time has come to sell a Crown corporation or parts of it? What is the time to split them and re-combine them in different ways?
The House of Commons by and large has shown very little interest in those subjects. The House of Commons is an extremely reactive body. It is not a leadership body. We have never really had debate in terms of asking about Crown corporations in this way. Even the debate that we have had so far on Crown corporations has never really dealt with those questions.
Let me outline some possible hypothetical solutions which have to be tackled, probably in the new Parliament, if we want to get a grip on Crown corporations. First, we should set up a special committee of the House of Commons directed toward looking at Crown corporations as Crown corporations, not from the point of view of their activities. I believe that can best be done by the various standing committees that have an operational interest in a particular field. For example, the Transport Committee should look at Air Canada, the Energy Committee should look at Petro-Canada, and so on. You can run down the whole gamut in that way.
I believe it would be worth while to have a special reference to establish a special committee to look at Crown corporations so as to examine at least two matters that trouble me about Crown corporations. The first matter is the enormous variety of Crown corporations. If you look at the recent list of Crown

May 14, 1984
Financial Administration Act
corporations published by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray), you will not find any common denominator as to what is and what is not a Crown corporation. There are Crown corporations that involve the last post fund to Petro-Canada, to subsidies of Petro-Canada, to Air Canada and so on. One of the first things we need to know is what is a Crown corporation. The Crown corporations in which Members of Parliament are most interested at this point are those that intervene in some way in the economic affairs of our country.
The second question that has to be looked at in such a committee is the impact of Crown corporations in monopoly situations, such as Northern Power Commission, Northern Transportation, and Air Canada, CP Air policy, and the Petro-Canada situation with respect to the other oil companies. We have to examine the role that these companies play where there is a competitive factor. Then we have to look at Crown corporations from the point of view of where we have a monopoly operation. Canadair and Air Canada are classic examples. We also have to provide some guidelines as to the risk that we ought to take in our Crown corporations. When you go into business, establish a new corporation or buy someone else out, you take on some very real risks. Nobody can foretell the future. It means that each Crown corporation is up against its own form of risk.
We do not debate those issues in the House of Commons, mainly because we do not provide ourselves the time to do it. We in this place probably manage our time in the most incompetent way of any legislature in the world. If Members are interested in these very real points of policy, then we have to provide time to debate them. In addition, we have to find a mechanism which would force us to pay attention to the facts or the problem in front of us, instead of wandering all over the map, as we do now.
This is why I suggest that we set up a special committee to examine the question of Crown corporations. This should be examined from the three points of view I have mentioned. The committee should spend some time trying to develop guidelines it expects the Government to follow in terms of the creation of Crown corporations in the future. Also, when it examines Crown corporations, there should be guidelines for this examination both on the floor of the House and in committee. If we were able to agree on a platform and pay attention to that when we come back after the next sequence of elections, we would have served everybody very well and this debate might have been of some use after all, after having gone through 79 speeches.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, isn't it wonderful that a Member of the Government finally got up to defend its legislation? A Member on the Government side has finally had the courage to stand up and support this government legislation. That is wonderful, just wonderful! If the Hon. Member has such a wonderful suggestion, why does he not persuade his colleagues to bring in the amendment so that we can look at it?
Members of both opposition Parties have been talking about accountability and responsibility. That is what we want for our corporations. We are not saying that all corporations are bad, because they are not all bad, some are good. However, There should be accountability. The people should have the opportunity to know what these Crown corporations are doing rather than going on year after year with no one, not even the Ministers, knowing what they are doing.
I would like to deal with some important points regarding this Bill. I shall begin by reading six points contained in a letter which I think must be noted very carefully. They are:
1.	First and foremost, a statute overrules any Standing Order. This, in my judgment, means that the House should take a very hard look at any Bill which would have this effect, and should pass it only if very solid proof is advanced that such a provision is essential for some indispensable public purpose.
It would take a great deal to convince me that any such provisions are ever required. I suppose it is conceivable that, in a great war, or something of that sort, they might be justifiable; but, plainly, no such situation is involved here, at least as far as I can see.
I think the Opposition should raise Cain on this.
2.	Specifically, section 2.2(3) is almost incredible. Surely, never before has any statute invaded the rights and privileges of the House of Commons by providing for a committee and then forbidding a motion to concur in its report. This is plainly a matter for the House itself to decide. If it wants to forbid motions for concurrence, it can of course do so. And, even if it does not, a motion for concurrence is not obligatory. If no one wants to move it, all right. But to forbid a motion for concurrence is an emasculation of the rights, powers and privileges of the House of Commons.
The Government should be made to stand and deliver on this. It is, on the face of it, a most gross invasion of the rights, powers and privileges of the House.
Heaven knows the House has little enough power now. But this, "Hang your clothes on a hickory limb, But don't go near the water," is intolerable. What possible excuse can there be for this?
3.	Passage of this provision could provide the Executive with a very dangerous precedent. It could try the same game again, forbidding motions to concur in the reports of other committees, and pleading, in justification, "Well, you accepted it in Bill C-24".
4.	What justification can be offered for section 154(4)? The powers of the Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments are already feeble enough. There are too many exemptions, and too slipperily worded, now. Why add to them? Why add to the secrecy which the freedom of information legislation was supposed to help us escape from?
5.	There is one piece of very sloppy drafting: section 155(3), which speaks of a "committee of Parliament". There is no such animal. There are Committees of the House of Commons; there are Committees of the Senate; there are Joint Committees of both Houses. But Parliament consists of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Commons . . . How can you have a Committee of the Queen?
6.	Section 155 provides that the motion contemplated shall stand referred to such committee as either House (or both) may designate. As I read it, this means it must go to a committee. But the committee is allowed only thirty days to consider and report. If it has not finished its job in thirty days, the Government can then move the motion to authorize the transaction under section 100, and this must be disposed of after only seven hours' uninterrupted debate.
This is another limitation on the powers of committees.
The Government should be pressed to justify it, pressed very hard.
"For ways that are dark and tricks that are strange-"
The six points which I have just put on the record were contained in a letter from Eugene Forsey, a former Senator and a man learned in the law. That is what he thinks about Bill C-24. I thought it was very important that that be put on
May 14, 1984

the record, particularly coming as it does from a man of the stature of the former Senator, Mr. Eugene Forsey.
I would like to deal with one other point, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) mentioned the fact that Sir John A. Macdonald brought in the CPR. Sure he did, but that was a different proposition entirely. The CPR had one big job to do. It was to build a rail line across the country in order that B.C. could come into Confederation. Sir John A. Macdonald made good provisions for that to happen. It was not Sir John A. Macdonald who nullified those provisions or who refused to live up to those obligations. For instance, passenger train service was promised forever. The CPR made definite promises. Why is it not accountable to the committees of the House?
What about Canadair? I am all in favour of building airplanes in Canada. I deplore the fact that the once strong shipbuilding industry in the country has gone to wrack and ruin because of the attitude taken by the present Government. Canadair is on the way to wrack and ruin. We can build good planes, but we do not have to okay indebtedness, sloppiness, carelessness, and a lack of accountability. The directors of Canadair and the Senator who is supposed to be responsible for it have all been reappointed in spite of the facts that they are losing money left and right, that they do not report to the House, and that they do not have any accountability at all. I do not call the reappointment of those people accountability.
What did Joel Bell, the new President of the Canada Development Investment Corporation, have to say when he began to look the corporation over? He found that it had 22 vice presidents.


A. Daniel McKenzie: All Grits.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes. He did not say how many directors there were, but he did say that there were so many vice presidents that he got rid of 10 of them right away. For how many years has that situation been going on? The Government does not know what is going on. We are opposed to that type of thing. We are opposed to extravagance when spending the people's money. We are opposed to those who say: "Let the people pay; it does not matter how much is wasted or what is done with it, because the people will pay".
Joel Bell then found that Canadair had so many employees that he was able to discharge 338 of them. How long were those 338 employees sitting on cushions, or on whatever else they sit over there, doing nothing? For how long were they being paid with the people's money only for their good looks while a million people were unemployed and living under the poverty line?
We are opposed to those kinds of things, Mr. Speaker. We want accountability for Crown corporations. We want the people to know what the Crown corporations are doing, and we want full value for every dollar spent.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that this will probably be the shortest speech on record, but 1 do want to be on that record as supporting the
Government Expenditure
six-months' hoist amendment that has been proposed by this side. I think that that is a very constructive idea.
Normally when a six-months' hoist is moved, it is moved for dilatory purposes. However, under the set of circumstances with which we are faced today, 1 think that the idea of allowing this matter to stand over for six months-by which time we will in all probability have a new Progressive Conservative Government-will enable us and the people of Canada to bring to bear on this question our views and our expertise.


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but we have reached six o'clock."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Shall all orders and items preceding No. 101 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Stand.


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



Donald Alex Blenkarn: That a Standing Committee of this House be appointed and that it be empowered to review annually, and from time to time as may be necessary, the total amount of any Estimates or Supplementary Estimates to determine whether the Estimates or Supplementary Estimates in their totality exceed the ability of the country to pay the moneys required and to priorize such estimates of expenditure of the government to ensure that the moneys appropriated by Parliament for operations are appropriated to those needs of the people of Canada in the order of their priority.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of coming to grips with the budgetary deficit of this country has occupied not only Members of Parliament from this side, but Members of Parliament from the other side. Indeed, the leading contender for the leadership of the Party forming the present Government has said that there must be some system of priorizing the expenditures of the country.
The problem is this: Our present system of clearing Estimates is that the Estimates are presented in the blue book and are sent to the standing committees of the House. At the present time, Members who sit on the Standing Committee on

May 14, 1984
Government Expenditure
Health, Welfare and Social Affairs are people generally interested in issues concerning health and welfare; Members who sit on the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture are people interested in communications; and Members who sit on the committee dealing with Indian affairs and northern development are people interested in those concerns. The tendency is not to cut back on an item of government concern in which Members are interested. In the whole presentation of Estimates, we have Estimates coming forward in which no effort is made to priorize, no effort is made at frugality, and no effort is made at determining what should be an expenditure that is appropriate for the Government.
As well, we have budgets coming forth and we have borrowing authority Bills coming forth. Members from all sides of the House rise and say that it is too much and that the Government is spending more than the country can afford. But when the Estimate comes before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, Members on that committee want to spend more money. We have the strange notion that Members of Parliament are saying, "Cut expenditures. Let us priorize it. Let us be frugal. Let us stay within our ability to pay the bills for the taxes received", and at the same time are asking for greater expenditures.
We have had debates in this session demanding increased expenditures for education, for health, for pensions, for forestry, and so on. Those are all valid concerns and things for which we as Members of Parliament are receiving demands from our constituents.
The fact is that we are only able to collect about $70 billion in the current years. We are going to spend approximately $100 billion. Therefore, there will be a shortfall of approximately $30 billion. Obviously, we are going to try to spend ourselves rich and spend on programs that we cannot afford in total. That is because as Members of Parliament we have not been honest with ourselves; we have not directed our attention to the things we want, to what we want from government, and to what priority we want them to have.
I do not think there is any question, certainly from my point of view, that the senior citizens in this country must be well looked after. We must also ensure that there is an education system which will train our young, and even our not-so-young, so that they can participate fully in the economic activities of the country. There is no question that we must provide for a proper defence of Canada. However, even these things must be placed in priority. Where do we place these things in priority when we are looking at a debt of $147 million, money which has been set aside as a subsidy to insulate people's houses? Where do we put the $187 million-that is the money, if my memory serves me correctly, that was set aside to pay people for new furnaces in order that they could convert from oil to wood, natural gas or something of that nature? Where do we put a program which provides for almost $2 billion this year to drill holes for oil, when the price of oil is dropping and when, in fact, we have all sorts of resources that are already known for example, in the tar sands area in Alberta? Where do we put that $2 billion that is paid to companies, not for finding oil,
but largely on the basis of their shareholding and whether that shareholding is Canadian? Even though the tulip show in the national capital is absolutely magnificent, where do we put the $107 million that was set aside for the National Capital Commission? That budget, I would say, is almost equal to the total budget of the City of Mississauga for parks, administration, education-for everything put together. What priority do we give to these amounts?
Our attention has not been called and we have not been asked, "Now look, do you want $900 million to go to the CBC or do you want to pay senior citizens this amount of money in a pension?" If the choice were there, where would we put our priority? For too long we have said that we want our cake and we want to eat it too and, thank you very much, put ice cream on it as well. It is the obligation of Members of Parliament to be responsible, but this House has not been responsible.
Therefore, what we ought to have in this House is a committee-you might call it a Treasury Board type of committee-that would look at the total ambit of government activity, every estimate coming forward, and that would put a priority on it. Some things are absolutely necessary, some things are perhaps not as necessary, and some other things have a pretty low priority. They are perhaps desirable, but not necessary.
We have the ability to charge our citizens taxes. What we have tended to do is not only to take the money in taxes, but charge yet unborn citizens taxes for expenditures made by us through the use of the borrowing system. It may be proper for us to borrow against the income of the taxes that will be paid by citizens yet unborn, but that should be a question of priorizing.
What this motion attempts to do, Sir, is to bring to the attention of this Parliament the obligation of Parliament to take a look at the various expenditures of Government, come to grips with where the money should be spent, and make Parliament responsible for the order in which the money is spent. Almost all of the money we spend in that blue book of ours has some value. It is perhaps money well spent. However, is it well spent in priority?
If this Parliament had a committee which deliberately looked at these things, I suggest, Sir, that we would not have the kind of situation where a leadership candidate such as the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development (Mr. Johnston) is going around the country saying that he has grave doubts as to the value of the DR IE program and that he thinks his own Ministry, MSERD, should perhaps be abolished. We have had other candidates for the leadership of that Party saying that perhaps they could eliminate three whole Departments. Parliament would have dealt with these matters on a priority basis. Why would Parliament have done that? Because Parliament and its committee would have been charged with making sure that the money which is available is spent in priority. We would then quite apparently have a situation where Parliament would say, "Yes, it is important
May 14, 1984

that we have an aircraft industry, but not so important that we do not pay proper attention to the pensions due to our senior citizens and do not pay proper attention to the money required to finance post-secondary education".
The Government may say that it is the obligation of government to determine these things. Yes, government is absolutely and in final form responsible for the spending which it presents to Parliament. However, government expenditures must be approved by this Parliament. In that regard, this Parliament should have a committee to go over government expenditures so that this Parliament, representing as it does all sides and representing the people of the country, could say to government, "Yes, expenditures are important but here is our priority; this is what we say you should spend the money on first, and this is what we say you should spend the money on second; here is where we fit the $1.2 billion or so you are going to give to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation; and here is where we see social housing as against family allowances or child tax credits".
No one can have all the pie, Sir, and all of the ice cream and all of the things one would like to have. In our own families we must determine whether mother gets a new coat and whether that coat is a mink or an ordinary cloth coat. At the present time, the tendency is that expenditures are made up in a budgetary envelope system, and expenditures in those envelopes are allowed to creep up by some sort of a percentage. But there is no priorizing by Parliament between envelopes. There is no determination as to whether we should spend more money on defence and less money on external affairs and foreign aid. The fact is that we spend more on both. Is that the proper priorizing of where we should be going? Surely, it is not good enough to have budgets and Estimates presented to us where every Department receives 5 per cent, 8 per cent or 9 per cent more, and those that really squeak receive 13 per cent or 14 per cent more, but everyone gets more? Surely when revenues are not there to cover expenditures, there must be a situation where Parliament is called in to judge whether CIDA money is more important than housing money, or whether subsidies to the Export Development Corporation are more important than subsidies to some municipality to supply urban transportation.
We cannot have all of these things, and it is up to this Parliament to determine which of these things we can have. Those broad determinations must be made and should be made by a separate committee of the House charged with that concern.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to make a few comments this afternoon on Motion No. 101, which was put forward by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). 1 believe that the basis of this motion really relates to government expenditure and deficits. As I listened to the Hon. Member's argument about the idea of having one committee of Parliament which would priorize government spending, I thought back to the two elections of 1979 and 1980. If you recall, Mr. Speaker, the
Government Expenditure
Conservative Party won the 1979 election. In that election, one of the concepts of that Party, I believe, was that it would lower taxes by some $2 billion, but it would buy new ships for the navy, and it would also grant home owner relief of a couple of billion dollars a year. That is not new because most Parties at election time do make promises which involve the expenditure of money.
The 1980 election, I believe, was very significant-perhaps because it was just nine months after the 1979 election- because, for the first time that I can remember, at least the two major Parties in our country were being very careful not to promise anything which was going to cost very much money. I recall that the Liberal Party promised a $35 a month increase in the guaranteed income supplement, a promise which it kept, but the total expenditure for this was very carefully calculated. I believe that the Conservative Party did the same. That election was significant because everyone was remembering back to the 1979 election and with every promise by both Parties, the news media, and independent observers carefully calculated, exactly how much money was being promised by each Party. Everyone realized that because of the financial straitjacket we were in as a country it would be difficult to keep those promises.
Remembering back to that election makes me conscious of the concern which the Hon. Member has expressed. However, the problem I see with the motion to set up a committee which would be a sort of superduper estimates committee is that it would change our basic parliamentary system. The Government proposes legislation or expenditures. It is up to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) and the Minister involved to prepare a blue book and spending Estimates, and for the Government to set the priorities as it sees them and then propose them to Parliament. Parliament ultimately disposes of these Estimates and decides whether it will accept or reject them.
In our parliamentary system we have a very highly disciplined caucus system. If there is a majority Government, the Estimates are generally carried. If there is a minority Government, such as we had in 1972, very often within eight months or one year the Government may well be defeated, either on its budget or on its spending Estimates. Of course that is a matter of confidence, and so the Government can be defeated. Yet under our system the responsibility for making proposals to Parliament remains with the Government.
The motion which the Hon. Member for Mississauga South proposes is in some ways a very radical motion. It suggests that the House or a committee of the House would somehow have a responsibility in determining exactly what the spending Estimates would be for the Government. Unless we change our whole parliamentary system to one where the House would operate on a congressional system, I believe that this proposal would not be acceptable. It is not really clear to me exactly how that system would work. I suppose we could have a committee which could make recommendations, but it seems

May 14, 1984
Government Expenditure
to me that the responsibility must ultimately remain with the Government as to the amount of its expenditures, deficits and so on.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would like to review some of the steps which the Government has taken in recent years to strengthen accountability and management throughout the Government and its relationship to Parliament in general. I would like to underline at this time that while these measures have been significant indeed, they have respected, they have been consistent with, and they have complemented the existing parliamentary traditions. The focus has consistently been on making these conditions work more effectively, rather than on throwing the traditions themselves into question. This approach is in fundamental conflict with the idea of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South.
In our system, Parliament is responsible for three main tasks; to legislate, to grant supply and to authorize taxes, and, finally, to support or not to support the Government of the day. These tasks are traditionally performed by granting, or refusing, assent to measures proposed by the Government after they have undergone public scrutiny and debate. The responsibility for governing the country is vested, not in Parliament, but in the Ministers of the Crown. Parliament is responsible for the continuous scrutiny of the Government's implementation of the measures to which Parliament has given assent.
There is a view held by some that Parliament should play a greater role in actually framing the measures put to it by the Government. It is this belief which appears to underlie the motion before us and which is the reason why it represents such a radical break with existing parliamentary traditions. Fundamental to the role of Parliament as a body to which the Government must be accountable is the need for Parliament to approve the Government's expenditures and Parliament's powers to review these expenditures. These powers are currently exercised through the Public Accounts Committee and through several standing committees of the House studying Estimates. Significant improvements in how the Government reports to these various committees have been implemented in recent years. I will be reviewing some of these a bit later in my remarks in order to illustrate how accountability has already been significantly strengthened.
Several noteworthy proposals to alter the existing committee structure and powers have been put forward in recent years. The Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, the Lambert Commission, made a number of recommendations in this regard. Members of Parliament, such as the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) and the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), placed a set of proposals before the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures in November of 1982. This set of proposals would see the creation of four new standing committees with expanded powers. In particular, these committees would be empowered to become involved in the actual formulation of expenditure proposals and counter-proposals rather than being restricted to the scrutiny of measures put forward by the Government. Parliament would itself become directly involved
in the financial operations of the Government under these proposals. Indeed, the Huntington-Lachance report itself concluded that if its recommendations were accepted, it is obvious that these committees would become the foundation of the financial operation of the Government of Canada.
I would point out that implicit in these proposals is the creation of an extensive parliamentary bureaucracy which would require substantial resources for its operations in order to support the work resulting from the expanded committee mandates, a bureaucracy which would parallel that already in existence to support the Government in the formulation of its own spending proposals.
These measures proposed in the motion before us are obviously very similar and close in spirit to those of the two Members.
The Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures itself based its seventh report largely on its consideration of the Huntington-Lachance proposals. Interestingly enough, however, Mr. Speaker, the committee's recommendations, while accepting the establishment of new standing committees, backs off substantially from empowering these committees to become directly involved in the operations of government. Indeed, the committee report states emphatically that, "It is important to stress that this committee is seeking for Parliament an increased influence in the analysis of Governdment policies, not direct control of the Government. The committee fully accepts that the executive must be free to make its judgments and to govern, subject, of course, to maintaining the confidence of the House of Commons".
This clearly illustrates that there are different roads to parliamentary reform and that indeed strong differences of opinion now exist among parliamentarians on the subject. The motion before us is clearly premature and is being put forward without an adequate context within which its pros and cons can be weighed.
Before concluding my remarks, I would like to elaborate on some of the background necessary for a fuller consideration of these issues by reviewing some of the measures implemented by the Government in recent years to strengthen accountability and management generally, particularly in its relations to Parliament.
In 1975, the Government made manifest its intent to improve the management and control of its expenditures and of Government more broadly by establishing the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, the Lambert Commission. The terms of reference of the Commission as set out by the Government clearly reflect its concerns. These terms referred to unprecedented demands placed on government by the growth requested by the public in its responsibilities and programs, a desire to ensure efficiency and probity in the Public Service of Canada, a serious concern about the adequacy of financial administration in government for establishing effective control over, and accountability for, public funds, and the need to use resources effectively, avoid waste and increase productivity in government.
May 14, 1984

Even before the Commission began its deliberations and until the present, the Government has been taking a range of steps to respond to these concerns and thereby strengthen management and accountability throughout the Government. I would like at this time to touch briefly on some of the major initiatives of the last few years in this regard.
There has been the introduction of the policy and expenditure management system, the envelope system, and the associated fiscal plan over a multi-year horizon. This was a major step forward in that it alters fundamentally the stance from which the Government reports to Parliament on expenditures and other fiscal matters and adds significantly to the information provided to Parliament concerning the Government's overall spending plans. It provides an expenditure management framework that sets multi-year levels for both total outlays and for various envelopes or policy sectors. It established policy committees within Cabinet to undertake policy development and decision-making within the discipline of the envelope system.
While the previous Conservative Government introduced portions of this system, the current Government has provided its consolidation and final implementation. I would also remind Hon. Members that the developmental work on the envelope system was undertaken before the previous Conservative Government was in office.
The current fiscal plan, made public in the Budget of last February, is only the most recent illustration of the fact that the Government has recognized the view, expressed by the Lambert Commission among others, that such a fiscal plan can provide Parliament and the public with an opportunity to consider the Government's total fiscal plans and its underlying priorities. It also provides a clear fiscal context within which parliamentarians can situate the Estimates, both Main and Supplementary.
Policy expenditures and management system, PEMS, another way of describing the envelope system, facilitates expenditure planning on a top-down basis, employing the functional envelopes set out in the fiscal plan. The system has been designed to achieve closer integration of the government's priority setting, policy development and expenditure management decision-making processes; decentralize decision-making authority, in recognition of the increasing range and complexity of government responsibility and the interrelated policies and programs designed to discharge them; increase ministerial direction and control over the policy, planning and expenditure decisions of the government; and provide adequate time for the planning process, so that Ministers can review existing policies and programs and bring about desirable changes in the use of resources to reflect changing priorities of the Government. Most important, perhaps, it makes transparent to Parliament and the public the processes through which the Government establishes its priorities and the over-all fiscal constraints within which this is done.
Government Expenditure
A key elaboration of PEMS has been the introduction by the Treasury Board of the multi-year operational planning system. This system is aimed at fostering more integrated resource planning, budgeting and management throughout the Government. Two key concepts, budgeting to results and budgeting for management, underlie the multi-year operational plans submitted to the Treasury Board. The first concept is designed to facilitate practical but systematic budgetary analysis based on concrete program outputs and inputs. The second is aimed at providing a clear understanding throughout the Government of the responsibilities of Public Service managers and how these responsibilities translate into budgetary requirements.
The office of the Comptroller General, created in 1978 in response to a central recommendation of the Lambert Commission, assists in the establishment of sound management practices in the federal government by developing policies and standards and by promoting and monitoring improvements in financial and operational management. Over the last four years, 30 or so Departments have participated in one of the Comptroller General's key initiatives called improvement in management practices and controls, or IMPAC, which is directed at the internal management process of individual departments. IMPAC has resulted in the establishment of action plans for over 100 major projects to improve organization, planning, internal and external reporting, automation, program delivery procedures, audit and program evaluation. Almost 80 per cent of the work on these projects has now been completed, and there is clear evidence of the ongoing yields that are the result.
It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Comptroller General's office is the one department of Government, although it is gradually working through practically all Departments, to implement a much more effective system of improvements in management and control practices. In fact, the number of man-years is being reduced because these procedures have been implemented in many Departments.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to review another important achievement of this Government in relation to strengthening accountability-its strong and continued commitment to improve the information which is provided to parliamentarians and, through us, to all Canadians on the spending plans which we ask Parliament to approve.
The initiatives already described, such as the policy and expenditure management system and the improvement to management practices and controls, project IMPAC, are, in a sense, internal mechanisms used by the Government to better plan its proposed spending and to better manage and control funds once they are approved by Parliament. However, central to effective financial control is the presence of appropriate financial and management accountability information to Parliament. Our progress in providing better information to Parliament has strengthened the role of Parliament and increased the ability of Parliament to hold the Government more accountable for its performance.

May 14, 1984
Government Expenditure
The Government's Estimates, which are tabled in this House, represent only the visible tip of a comprehensive and complex process of priority setting and trade offs, which ultimately produce the spending plans of the Government. And yet it is a crucial element in the equation of parliamentary control and governmental accountability.
When the Lambert Commission recommended that the government improve the nature-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbauit):: Order, please. The Chair regrets to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary but his time has expired. For debate, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, was it not Aristotle who said that the logical conclusion of democracy is chaos? The reason for that conclusion, Sir, reached by a much greater observer of constitutional affairs than myself, was that there is an inclination in everyone to try to get more out of a system that they put in it. You can see that in Canada today. Ask any Canadian walking down the street and he will agree that government expenditures must be reduced. They have got out of hand. But they do not want financing for their own pet projects reduced in any way. Everyone figures that they should get a tax break that is a little better, that the bridge in their locality should be built, or that their pension should be increased. Therefore, we have to find a system within the democratic workings of government-because I would not want to see that system go by the board-which would allow us to put a ceiling on government expenditures. For that reason I was pleased to second the motion of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).
I agree with what the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) said in the first part of his speech. It was most interesting, indeed delightful to listen to. That was when he was thinking for himself. But in the second part of his speech, when he started reading from a text undoubtedly prepared by bureaucrats in the Department of Finance, I must admit I lost a little interest. However, he rightly pointed out that were the idea presented here today to be adopted in its entirety, we would have a system much more akin to that in the United States where negotiations go on between the executive branch and the legislative branch as to what the ultimate budget is going to be.
One of the problems we have is the system of compiling budgets and Estimates. Each sub-branch of a government Department figures out how much it has spent last year, what it would like to do in the following year, then it adds it all together, adds another 10 per cent for the slush fund, and passes it along to the next level of government. That level then consolidates and adds a little more. And so you go up the totem pole, until the Minister of Finance has to take all these amounts and present the bill to Parliament. When the bill is presented in the form of the Estimates and the blue book, with which we are all so familiar, there is practically nothing that parliamentarians can do to change it. At that time, to all intents and purposes the final figure is cast in stone. There is
very little that parliamentarians, in government or in opposition, can do at that time.
I notice there is one Cabinet Minister in the House this afternoon. She would probably confirm my suspicions that every pressure put on a Cabinet Minister is to expend more money. This pressure comes from the Department for which the Minister has special responsibility. Whatever you ask of departmental officials, the inevitable response is that they need more person-years and more money. Whenever a Cabinet Minister talks to the responsible people, they always want more services. They want Government to spend more money on more things. Sometimes they want reductions in taxes, which amounts to the same thing in the end, I guess. So I certainly understand the difficulty facing government Members when they try to keep expenditures under control.
Many Members of Parliament and Cabinet Ministers are concerned with their own Departments and have little impact on over-all government financial policy and expenditures. Most of us tend to look upon ourselves as spokesmen for regional interests. I am as guilty of that as anyone. Or else we look upon ourselves as spokesmen for departmental or sectorial interests. On many occasions the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), when answering questions, presents himself as the spokesman for the agricultural industry, trying to get more and more from his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to spend on a very important part of our life and economy. But the Minister does not look at all government expenditures and the difficulty of keeping them under control. He has this one sectorial interest, an interest shared by many other Cabinet Ministers, especially the more junior Ministers. What we should do, Mr. Speaker, and I say "we" as government in the broadest sense, encompassing the executive and the legislative arms, what we should do is, first of all, decide what the maximum aggregate expenditure is to be. Once that is decided, then the next decision you have to make concerns how much each Department can have for its purposes. This is not done now.
The proposal put forward by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South at least brings forward the possibility that we might begin to look at affairs in that light rather than the way we do at present. If you go back in history you will see some of the concepts which have been brought into being to try to deal with this problem in times past. Treasury Board was one of the first ideas. However, at present that does not seem to be that effective, nor has it been for many years. The Lambert Commission recommended the envelope system. This was put into effect in 1979. I am beginning to have some doubts about the efficacy of the envelope system. The Treasury Board system has not worked, and now the envelope system does not appear to be working properly. What we are doing is to add more layers of bureaucracy to the system. In effect, you are slowing things down and making them more expensive than they would have been without these mechanisms and devices of control. These were admirable ideas, but they do not appear to be working in the way they were intended to.
May 14, 1984

Presumably it would be Parliament that would be called upon to endorse the recommendations of the committee of which the Hon. Member speaks in his motion. That means that Parliament as a whole would determine the maximum aggregate expenditure. I do not know what types of tests we would have to use, but a logical criterion for ascertaining the maximum would be a percentage of Gross National Product. We would find out in advance what percentage of the GNP should be used for federal purposes. That then gives us the figure which would be distributed among the competing demands. If priorization were to be applied by committee and Parliament, it would impose a sense of responsibility on individual Members of Parliament, which at present appears to be somewhat lacking. Of course, it would be very difficult, but it would make MPs act responsibly. They would no longer be able to hide behind the Government or blame someone else if their pet project were not funded. If it were found that a road in one part of the country had priority over a road in another part of the country, the two Members concerned would have equal responsibility for the final decision on where the money was to be spent.
With these thoughts in mind, Sir, it is my pleasure to be able to support the ideas presented today by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South. If implemented, I am sure they would do much to restore to Parliament its true historic role as a protector of the public purse.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, at first blush the motion seems rather appealing to parliamentarians. Given a quick reading, one would think the motion would expand the role of Parliament in expenditure control and increase the level of accountability, which is of course a buzzword for Members of Parliament. After all, keeping the Government accountable is the raison d'etre of Parliament. Parliament is a talking shop, but the debate has to have a point. The purpose of our debate is to ensure that the programs we approve are well directed; that the policy thrust is sound; and that the targeting of programs is accurate. What I mean by that is that we must ensure that the money we appropriate goes to where it is needed most. Once these programs are in place, Mr. Speaker, it is Parliament's task to see that they continue to be implemented in the way approved by Parliament; that they do not become diverted; that the programs do not in some way change course and go beyond the spirit and will of Parliament.
The task of program evaluation is a difficult one to impose upon politicians. If that were our task, even in the enlarged and expanded committee proposed by the Hon. Member, then we would need a great deal of expert help in program evaluation. That is my difficulty with the motion. I see it as being somewhat too narrow in its scope. It is primarily concerned with the amounts expended. However, if we are talking about accountability in all its aspects, it means ensuring that the programs on which funds are expended continue to meet the Government's priorities and objectives as approved by Parliament.
Government Expenditure
For a long while now the Government of Canada has recognized the importance of its own internal accountability system. The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) quite rightly drew attention to this system. The people of Canada should know that there is and has been developing within the Government of Canada quite an admirable program evaluation system. It has been on going since the 1960s. It has been improved upon ever since. For example, we now have the Office of the Comptroller General. We now have the policy and expenditure management system, known as PEMS. We have Estimates now which are much easier to work with. They are more enlightening for parliamentarians working in committee and examining them. The Treasury Board has provided resources in all Departments for this evaluation activity to go on. While this activity goes on, there can be adjustments and corrections as required. The Auditor General, himself a servant of Parliament, has been interested in this entire process. He calls it "measuring cost-effectiveness".
These evaluation activities in government were not always as satisfactory as they are today. Today there is a requirement in every Department of government to evaluate not just the new programs which come into effect but all programs on a regular three-year to five-year cycle. They must show that moneys spent are applied efficiently and effectively in pursuit of the objectives of the Government as approved by Parliament. The oversight of all this activity is of course carried out by the Comptroller General whom I mentioned earlier.
I would like to review very quickly what this program evaluation system requires of each Department. There are three requirements: first, a need for programs in terms of the current, social and economic environment and current government priorities must be examined; second, an actual performance of the program in achieving desired objectives; and third, a potential for enhancing the cost effectiveness of programs through redesigned and improved operations, in other words, to upgrade efficiency.
Lest it be thought in this House or in the country at large that the program evaluation process, which has been improving all along, is still not very effective, let me remind Hon. Members that very recently a former Comptroller General, Mr. Harry Rogers, received recognition for his excellent work in that office in the area of program evaluation. In 1983, he was the recipient of the Myrdal Award for Government from the International Evaluation Research Society. A growing number of other government officials have been coming to Canada to see what we are doing. They have been impressed, and we have received a good deal of recognition.
In his 1983 report, the Auditor General included a chapter on program evaluation. I recommend to Hon. Members that they take a look at it. It recognized the significant improvements which have been made in this area. We must remember that this is a servant of the House who reported. In his report he recognized that improvements had been made and supported fully the Government's approach to evaluation. However, he noted that there was still room for improvement and that
3706

May 14, 1984
Government Expenditure
the quality of the studies conducted by evaluation units in each Department could still be upgraded and improved. All this activity known as program evaluation has involved more resources from Treasury Board and more public servants working in these units. They have been praised for what they are doing, but there is still room for improvement.
What is done with all their work? This is where I come down to the evaluation from the point of view of Parliament itself. We know that Cabinet gains a great deal from the work of these evaluation units. It assists them in the design of new programs, doing away with programs which no longer serve a purpose whenever that happens.


Dave Nickerson: When have they ever done that?


B. Keith Penner: That is a good question. It seems to me that they could make better use of these program evaluations, especially in the latter exercise. However, here is where I come to my problem. The problem I have in assessing the work of these program evaluation units is that officials who appear before parliamentary committees will not share with us the results of their work. Why will they not take us into their confidence so that we can draw our own conclusions on how good a job they have done? Then we could stand in the House and make recommendations to the Government or say that a program is no longer serving the needs for which it was designed or that a program ought to be changed or changed more quickly.
The problem of parliamentarians in committee is that when officials appear before us, they are really unwilling to share with us in a clear, concise way what they have discovered. Public money has made the evaluation possible. The evaluation can be used by the Government and by Cabinet. The evaluation can be used by the Government and by Cabinet. Why should parliamentarians be unable to use it? Always when we call for this kind of information, when we would like to be taken into the confidence of the officials and know what conclusions they have reached, they plead with us to go through the Freedom of Information Act to obtain it. They hedge and they draw back, or they give long answers which tend to confuse parliamentarians and the committee. This frustration which we now have in dealing with the Estimates and in working with officials in committee has led the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) to say that we need another committee, a more powerful and more sweeping committee, to undertake this task. If we had more efficient work in the existing standing committees, if more hard information were provided to us, we could do a good job and we would not need this super expenditure oversight committee recommended by the Hon. Member in his motion today.


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


Mr. Jim Schroder (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to make a few comments on this motion. I, like my colleagues, find much in this motion which is attractive. However, the implementation of the workings of
this committee would in a sense be redundant if we made better use of the instruments that are already in place in the House to cope with various situations.
We should look at what the Government is trying to do with respect to strengthening public administration and accountability. This is extremely important in terms of the expenditures and the fact that we expect to obtain the very most for what we spend.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but we have reached six o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, on April 30 last I appealed to both the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. Erola) to give priority to the pending legislation which would repeal Section 12(l)(b) of the Indian Act which discriminates against Indian Women.
Section 12(l)(b) deprives Indian women who marry non-Indians and also their children of Indian status. In contrast, non-Indian wives of status Indians and their children gain Indian status. This provision, which was imposed on Indian communities by the white man's Indian Act, is clearly unfair and discriminatory. It is up to the Government of Canad to remove this discriminatory section which it imposed and which is contrary to our new Charter of Rights. This should be dealt with separately from the question of self-government.
In response to my question, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women agreed that the amendments to the Indian Act must come first and that this Bill should be dealt with separately from the self-government legislation. I urge her to continue to advocate this plan in Cabinet. I am sure that women parliamentarians of all Parties, who joined forces before to oppose Section 12(l)(b), will support her in working toward this priority.
The NDP strongly supports the concept of self-government for Indian peoples. The present patriarchal system must end. Self-government is long overdue. Surely, however, Indian women who lost their status as a result of non-Indian legislation should have the right to participate in this self-government process.
May 14, 1984

We recognize that procedures for re-registration for band membership may take time and that there is a process for appeal which is established by Indian people to aid in settling disputes. The Government must make a commitment in advance that extra funds will be provided for housing and services for reinstated persons who wish to return to their home reserves.
Many women who lost their status have indicated that they may not want to return to live on their reserves, but they do want to be Indian and they want their children to have a proud identity as status Indians. They ask that their children be registered and be granted aboriginal rights so that they can have access to educational grants in urban centres as well as the right to apply for band registration.
It is urgent that the Native Women's Association have adequate funding to put forward these views in the debate on the proposed legislation that will affect their lives. This week the conference hosted by the Assembly of First Nations is being held in Edmonton. Unfortunately, the Native Women's Association received only $10,000 to send delegates. They were forced to borrow additional moneys so that their voice will be heard in an assembly that represents a different point of view.
Funds borrowed to attend this conference must be replaced and Government funds for lobbying and legal advice must be made available if women who lost their status are to be heard by their people and by Members of Parliament. We urge the Government to approve additional funds from Secretary of State to cover these costs. I ask women parliamentarians in both Houses to join in a show of support for native women in their struggle for equal rights.


Mr. Rene Gingras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, during oral question period on Monday, April 30, 1984, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) raised the issue of removing from the Indian Act provisions that discriminate against women. On March 8 of this year, at the First Ministers' Conference on Aboriginal Rights, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced that the Government intended to table legislation in this respect as soon as possible.
Hon. Members will remember the announcement made by the Prime Minister at the time, when he stated that to amend the legislation, we must not only repeal paragraph 12(1 )(b) but also eliminate all provisions that discriminate on the basis of sex. More specifically, as the Prime Minister said, the Bill will introduce the following changes to the legislation:
No Indian man or woman shall lose his or her status as a result of marriage, and non-Indian spouses shall not acquire that status through marriage.
Adjournment Debate
Within certain limits, children and grandchildren born of marriages between Indians and non-Indians shall have Indian status.
Non-Indian spouses shall have the right to live on the reserve with their spouses.
Individuals who lost their Indian status as a result of discriminatory provisions in the Act shall be able to recover it, and their children shall have the right to be registered for the first time.
I am happy to confirm that the drafting of this Bill is already well advanced. The Government expects to be able to table the legislation this month.
I am sure that most Hon. Members will agree that legislation to eliminate from the Indian Act provisions that discriminate against individuals on the basis of sex should have been introduced a long time ago. We must therefore work together to adopt this legislation by the end of June. Only by enforcing this legislation in conjunction with sections 15(1) and 78 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will we be able to guarantee equality between Indian men and women.


COPYRIGHT-PROVISION OF CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-MATERIAL FOR SCHOOLS. (B) PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN UNITED STATES
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, for the past 13 years Canada's universities and schools have been trying to obtain access to CBC broadcasting materials that could be useful for educational purposes in the schools and universities across Canada. I directed a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) today and received a most unsatisfactory answer-one which was actually irresponsible. The Minister said that she is tabling a white paper on copyrights, and perhaps some time in the fall she might get around to finding a solution to this problem. The point I raised today was that the United States had solved the problem without making changes to the copyright laws; that is what I am asking to have happen here in Canada.
In 1982 the Minister of Communications stated that the matter relates to the copyright laws of the country, and that he and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had set up a task force to look into the whole question. It was supposed to report in the summer of 1982. As yet, we have not received any statements from the Minister or from the task force.
In the United States, the favourable Sony decision which was handed down recently covers excerpts from the National School Boards Association of the United States. In a letter of March 1, 1984, to Mr. C. H. Whitney of the Canadian School Trustees' Association, it was stated:
The Sony decision ... is all we could ask for. It further protects our off air guidelines which means anything can be taped off air, held for 45 calendar days and viewed in class any number of times during the first 10 school days. The

May 14, 1984
Adjournment Debate
U.S. Congress is not seriously considering any amendment to the copyright law. Therefore, the Sony decision will stand for some time.
In the United States, a solution to the problem was found without changing the copyright laws. I am sure we can do the same in this country.
I shall read some excerpts from the decision in the Sony Corporation of America, et al, versus Universal City Studios Inc.:
The average member of the public uses a VTR principally to record a program he cannot view as it is being televised and then to watch it once at a later time. This practice, known as "time shifting" enlarges the television viewing audience. For that reason, a significant amount of television programming may be used in this manner without objection from the owners of the copyrights on the programs. For the same reason, even the two respondents in this case, who do assert objections to time shifting in this litigation, were unable to prove that the practice has impaired the commercial value of their copyrights or has created any likelihood of future harm. Given these Findings, there is no basis in the Copyright Act upon which respondents can hold petitioners liable for distributing VTR's to the general public.
The Copyright Act referred to is the one in the United
States:
The Copyright Act provides the owner of a copyright with a potent arsenal of remedies against an infringer to his work . . . The two respondents in this case do not seek relief against the Betamax users who have allegedly infringed their copyrights. Moreover, this is not a class action on behalf of all copyright owners who license their works for television broadcast, and respondents have no right to invoke whatever rights other copyright holders may have to bring infringement actions based on Betamax copying of their works. As was made clear by their own evidence, the copying of the respondent's programs represents a small portion of the total use of VTR's. It is, however, the taping of respondent's own copyright programs that provides them with standing to charge Sony with contributory infringement. To prevail, they have the burden of proving that users of the Betamax have infringed their copyrights and that Sony should be held responsible for that infringement.
Fred Rogers, President of the corporation that produces and owns the copyright on Mr. Rogers' Neighbourhood, testified that the program is carried by more public television stations than any other program. Its audience numbers over three million families a day. He testified that he had absolutely no objection to home taping for non-commercial use and expressed the opinion that it was a real service to families to be able to record children's programs and to show them at appropriate times. If there are millions of owners of VTR's who make copies of televised sports events, religious broadcasts and educational programs such as Mr. Rogers' Neighbourhood, and if the proprietors of those programs welcome the practice, then the business of supplying the equipment that makes such copying feasible should not be stifled simply because the equipment is used by some individuals to make unauthorized reproductions of respondents' works. The respondents do not represent a class composed of all copyright holders. Yet, a finding of contributory infringement would inevitably frustrate the interests of broadcasters in reaching the portion of their audience which is available only through time-shifting.
The District Court findings lead to two conclusions. First, Sony demonstrated a significant likehood that substantial numbers of copyright holders who license their works for broadcast on free television would not object to having their broadcasts time-shifted by private viewers. Second, respondents failed to demonstrate that time-shifting would cause any likelihood of non-minimal harm to the potential market for, or value of, their copyrighted works. The Betamax is, therefore, capable of substantial non-infringing uses. Sony's sale of such equipment to the general public does not constitute contributory infringement of respondents copyrights.
It is all summed up, Mr. Speaker. In the United States they have found a solution to the problem. Universities and schools can obtain these educational films for viewing to assist in educational progress in the schools and universities. Teachers and professors across Canada have been asking for this for over 13 years now. Surely to goodness it is time the Government found a solution to the problem here in Canada.


Mr. Michel Veillette (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member's question, since the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) has left the House for the day, perhaps the Hon. Member will allow me to provide some additional information in response to the question asked by the Hon. Member earlier today.
After a second glance at the Hon. Member's question, it seems clear that the task force to which he referred is the one established in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs three years ago, to examine various issues in connection with revision of the Copyright Act. The Committee reported to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) in 1982. The Committee's recommendations, as well as several study reports prepared for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the findings of a number of consultations with the public and private sectors, were used in preparing for the latter department a working paper containing all recommendations regarding revision of the Copyright Act.
One of the studies to which I was referring was about exemptions from the Act and concerned the use of broadcast material by educational institutions.
In fact, the White Paper contains all the Government's decisions in this area.
The attitude is to refrain from making general exception for the use of material in the educational sector. The reason is obvious: many programs and publications are specifically designed for use by schools. Eliminating copyrights for this type of use would have the effect of seriously discouraging authors from producing such material.
The problems the teaching institutions had with the CBC when they wanted to have access to the material were also mentioned. The CBC, like all the other broadcasting companies, does not always own the copyright of the programs it transmits. Broadcasting companies obtain broadcasting permits from the people who own the copyright for the programs,
May 14, 1984

and often this is where their powers end. It is therefore not up to them to allow reproduction of this material. Concerning the American solution mentioned earlier by the Hon. Member, I can assure him that the Canadian solution found in the White Paper is at least just as good.
It is said in the White Paper that, from now on, non-profit teaching institutions will be entitled to a special and limited exemption in the case of public representations for educational purposes, that educational broadcasters will be entitled to a limited exemption with requirements similar to those provided for educational purposes to facilitate the production of educa-
Adjournment Debate
tional programs for internal use, that new collective copyright negotiation companies may be set up to protect certain rights for which individual negotiation is impractical, such as in the area of photocopying, which is especially important in the field of education.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his allotted time has expired.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order.
At 6.18 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, May 15, 1984