1984-05-22

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, May 14, 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 now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates; and on the amendment of Mr. Crosbie (p. 3688).
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, if I recall correctly, I have already had approximately two minutes to deal with the motion of the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).
The House of Commons finds itself in something of a predicament today. The House has already voiced its opinion on the closure motion which was introduced by the Government, and debate has been curtailed on the matter. Today the Bill is to be given second reading and referred to the appropriate committee. However, the motion which we are presently debating is that the Bill be not now read a second time but that that occur some six months hence. What happens this afternoon when the vote is taken? There is a possibility that the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for St. John's West might be carried. Where will that put us if the House expresses its opinion in two conflicting ways? I would imagine, however, that that is unlikely to occur because the Government will undoubtedly use its majority to rush this matter through and to foist it on the Canadian public.
It is evident that the Bill is flawed. Members on this side have spoken at considerable length and have demonstrated the areas in which the Bill is flawed. For example, it does not prevent the proliferation of Crown corporations. In fact, if anything, it makes it easier for the Government to establish yet more Crown corporations.
There will be a time limit imposed on parliamentary debate when new Crown corporations are brought into being, unlike the debate on Petro-Canada and Canagrex, which went on for
a considerable length of time because these were matters of great public importance. By and large, the public of Canada was of a contrary opinion to that of the Government and did not really want these things to happen. The Opposition was then able to do its job and debate these issues in earnest and at length. This will now no longer be possible. There will be a short time limit for debate on further Crown corporations, and that is, Sir, only if the Government does not want to go the Order in Council route, which it can do under this new legislation, or if it wants to create a new Crown corporation as a subsidiary of an existing one.
The legislation does not deal completely with the question of accountability. Most of the parliamentary review of the operation of Crown corporations will be, to all intents and purposes, after the fact. Although the Government is obliged to present to parliamentary committees its plans for the future, I would imagine that those plans would not be detailed and the Government would still engage in the same jiggery-pokery with Crown corporations as it did in the past. If it so wishes, it could instruct Crown corporations to do certain things-for example, Petro-Canada to take over Petrofina-and it can do that at the drop of a hat without bringing those plans before Parliament in advance for public scrutiny.
There is no real parliamentary surveillance of the operations or the plans of Crown corporations. There is no parliamentary surveillance which makes any kind of reasonable sense. Therefore, it is my intention to vote this evening in favour of the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for St. John's West which, if carried, would enable us to devote a further six months to the study of this important subject. It would give us time to go back to the public and to seek further expert input.
In all likelihood, in six months time we will have a new government if the election has been held by that time. In all likelihood it will be a Progressive Conservative Government, and our stand on Crown corporations has been made fully known. It was the Conservative Government under the leadership of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) which introduced in the first place in 1979 a much more comprehensive Bill to deal fully with the Crown corporation problem. Even if an election has not been held by that time, and even if the Liberal Party as an interim measure still forms the Government of the day, it would likely be a different Government with perhaps a slightly different outlook from that which it has today. Therefore, in all likelihood, even with that possibility, the legislation which it might wish to bring forward dealing with Crown corporations would be superior to that with which we are faced today.
The problem with the present Government is that it cannot really open the doors and let the sunshine in. Its closet, Sir, is

May 22, 1984
Financial Administration Act
clogged up with the skeletons of the past. It is not really possible for the present Government to open up the window on Crown corporations, because if it were to do that, it would bring to light all the ways in which it has manipulated Crown corporations in the past and all the secrets it wants to see remain hidden.
I would suspect that if there were this public scrutiny, the resultant legislation might wish to incorporate within itself the provision for privatization of Crown corporations. There is a growing trend toward privatization. More and more Canadians are realizing that there are many things which the private sector can do better than can the governmental sector. The problem is that there is no fixed set of rules for the privatization of Crown corporations. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) is to be complimented on his action in undertaking to privatize the Northern Canada Transportation Company. However, we do not know how he is going to do that. There are still some reservations on the part of members of the public, certainly members of the Opposition, as to whether he might give this to some of his political friends in some way or another. Therefore, any Crown corporation legislation should incorporate rules and guidelines for their privatization.
I want to say something about Bill C-25, the next Bill we will probably have to deal with. It will follow as a natural corollary to this Bill, and I think both C-24 and C-25 should be dealt with together over this six-month period advocated by the Hon. Member for St. John's West. If that were to take place, the whole question of Crown corporations could be dealt with in a much more businesslike way in order to achieve a much greater degree of parliamentary accountability than that proposed by the Government at the present time.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate on Bill C-24 and on the motion by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) to put off consideration of this Bill for some period of time. The Hon. Member has made a very logical request of the House. This Bill must be given consideration as part of an over-all package forming the order of business which the Government puts before the House. Bill C-24 is only part of the Government's over-all policy towards Crown corporations. Bill C-25 relates to companies such as de Havilland and Canadair, the mixed enterprises, so to speak. There are some very major omissions in this particular Bill which we hope will be taken up in Bill C-25, but we will not know that for sure until we get it into committee. 1 believe it is important that we look at these two Bills side by side.
There is another factor as well, Mr. Speaker, that of the position of Crown corporations under the competition Bill which is before us but is not yet into committee. The position the Government takes as it relates to Crown corporations under that particular legislation is also an important part of the package. As you can see, there is a very clear logic behind the motion of the Hon. Member for St. John's West.
Over and above that, I want to say as strongly as I can that this closure motion on the part of the Government is wrong because the Bill, as it has been presented, does not address the problems of Crown corporations as they appear to us in this House or as they appear to Canadians on a regular basis when they read about them. People are aware of this subculture of government consisting of Crown corporations. Some 265,000 people work for Crown corporations with some $65 billion in assets under their control. However, if you ask any Canadian if they could tell you what we have in mind, if they believe the bureaucracy and government spending is out of control, that the Government has lost control of the enterprises it is responsible for, the first thing that will come to their mind invariably is that Crown corporations have been allowed to proliferate. There has been no degree of financial or operating control. That is the point the average Canadian focuses on, that we must get better control of Crown corporations.
This point has not been addressed nearly as extensively as we had hoped it would be in this particular piece of legislation. That is why closure is wrong here. That is why it is important for the Government to take this Bill back and address the key problems of accountability and lack of responsibility which have been apparent over the past few years and have resulted in billions of dollars being lost at a time when we have huge government deficits. In essence, Mr. Speaker, huge amounts of money are being stolen from the next generation by this generation.
There are too many gaps in the Bill. It is a flawed piece of legislation. That is why we say it should be taken back to the drawing board. It is inadequate to address the problem. We need something which is more realistic and more akin to the legislation which the Clark Government introduced in 1979.
I would like to discuss briefly some of the aspects of the Bill which do not address the problem. Let us look at the Bill itself. It is enabling legislation. It is a blank cheque. There are no regulations. I do not believe that we, as Members of Parliament, should be asked to consider this Bill until those regulations are in place because of the importance to the legislation and to the operations of government which those regulations represent.
In the summer of 1981 we were considering Bill C-48, the Canada Oil and Gas Act. At that time we asked for the regulations. There was a tremendous amount of ministerial discretion within that Bill. The Bill was riddled with opportunities for the Minister to apply his own thinking rather than the policy of Parliament. Time and again we have seen how that Minister and the subsequent Minister have distorted the intentions of Bill C-48, as set out at the committee stage, through their actions under the vast amount of ministerial discretion provided in that Bill. That is what is missing from our consideration and that is another reason why we should be postponing consideration of the Bill. Too much is left to the Minister's or to Cabinet's discretion and there is not enough
May 22, 1984

opportunity for Parliament itself to put its stamp on the operations of these Crown corporations.
The role of the board of directors has been totally taken over by Cabinet. Normally the board of directors is asked to appoint the chief executive officer. That appointment is now made by the Cabinet. Normally the board of directors sets policies related to financing. That is now the role of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). Normally the board of directors sets the policies on the operations of the Crown corporation. The problem here, Mr. Speaker, is that there is not a sufficient degree of direction provided for within the Bill to give the particular Ministers the direction which they should follow in providing direction to these Crown corporations.
I would like to speak on the subject of financing. The Minister of Finance is given a great deal of discretion with regard to the financing of Crown corporations. He decides whether a Crown corporation can raise $1 million or $100 million. On this side of the House we have asked the Government to provide us with an over-all limitation of government financing once a year. It is in place for the Government itself but not for the hidden government, the Crown corporations. Because of the freedoms and total authority that the Government has today, we believe it is important to have blanket authority over Crown corporations' direct borrowing and Crown corporations' guarantees, including guarantees of governments as well as guarantees under various programs. This Bill does not provide for that. This protection for which we have asked has not been provided by two consecutive Ministers of Finance.
Another aspect to this legislation is that we have seen over the years Crown corporations and their subsidiaries being created without any degree of parliamentary control. While this Bill proposes to give some control, it does not do so with respect to subsidiaries. The Government does not want Parliament to have that sort of control but wants to limit it to the Crown corporations themselves.
The limited role of Parliament to initiate a reasonable degree of debate and understanding for the creation of new Crown corporations has meant the total loss of control. Clause 155 of the Bill allows for only 30 days of committee time for the consideration of new corporations and only seven hours of parliamentary debate. Any Crown corporation that exists today, such as Air Canada, Petro-Canada, CBC, Canadair and de Havilland, could have been created with that type of control. In fact, that did not even take place with CDIC. The Government simply created that corporation by Order in Council and did not even consider putting it before Parliament. I believe that corporation has been in existence for over a year and a half and we will finally see passage of legislation in that respect. That is an example of the power of Parliament. We were not able to do anything about that particular corporation.
Financial Administration Act
I have just touched on a number of issues. I know my colleagues will be dealing with other aspects of the Bill. The simple point is that this legislation should not go ahead. There are very logical reasons why it should be considered as a package with other Bills that are on the Order Paper. That is why we believe Members of Parliament should vote against this Bill and in favour of the motion by the Member for St. John's West.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-24. It is in the same spirit, although perhaps for some different reasons, that I want to echo the comments that were already made today. That is, it is important for Members of Parliament to oppose the legislation contained in Bill C-24.
I want to begin my comments by suggesting that I believe the Canadian economy is one that reflects the status of being a mixed economy. I believe Canadians generally appreciate the fact that there is a role for the private and public sector to play. I suspect that most countries of the world, particularly those that are progressive, reflect that type of mixed economy.
I think it is fair to say that Crown corporations are as Canadian as the beaver or the game of hockey. They have always been here and I suspect that they will continue to play a major role in the development of the Canadian economy of the future. I do not believe many serious economists would indicate anything to the contrary. We have seen the value of Crown corporations and we have seen Crown corporations that work extremely well. There have been Crown corporations that have been developing and leading the way in technological change. Research and development through to production, in a number of instances, have been led by Crown corporations both at the provincial and federal levels.
I have made those positive remarks about Crown corporations so that our position that we are not opposed to Bill C-24 because we are against the principle of Crown corporations is clearly understood. Quite the contrary, we believe there is an appropriate role for Crown corporations to play. However, we are particularly concerned about the lack of accountability in the present system and in the system as proposed in Bill C-24. When one looks at the root of many of the difficulties facing Canada today, accountability is part of that problem, whether it concerns the public sector or the private sector.
Let me talk for a moment about accountability with respect to the private sector. For the past four and a half years while 1 have been a Member of Parliament we have on many occasions passed legislation that gives incentives to corporations to do certain things. There have been all kinds of incentives. I suppose the most obvious one, the grandest one of them all and the one at which other countries might be laughing, is the PIP grant system. Here was an incentive, if you like, to oil companies operating in Canada to encourage them to explore in our frontier areas, offshore and in the far north.

May 22, 1984
Financial Administration Act
My family comes from Norway. Off the coast of Norway today is the same kind of activity that we have. Oil companies explore for gas and oil in a similar milieu to what we find off our East Coast. Norway has a different system from what we have. Norway does not have PIP grants. Just by way of background, Mr. Speaker, our PIP grants provide up to 80 per cent financing by the taxpayers of Canada. As a matter of fact, Sir, if you take advantage of some of the other tax incentives you could have about 95 per cent of the total exploration and development costs of these wells paid by the taxpayers of Canada.


Mr. Friesen:: Most of them dry.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As one my colleagues has indicated, most of them end up being dry. However, that is the name of the game. But 95 per cent of the cost of drilling a $200 million well is borne by the taxpayers of Canada. If oil or natural gas is found, then Canadian taxpayers, for that 95 per cent investment, receive 25 per cent of the action, so to speak. Think of it for a moment in terms of the concept of accountability. We put up 95 per cent of the cost of developing a new oil rig, and if the oil companies are successful we, the taxpayers, receive 25 per cent of the action.
I mentioned Norway, Mr. Speaker, because the Norwegians are in a similar situation. They have a different approach. They say to the oil companies: "Come and explore in our offshore areas". The oil companies ask: "How much are we going to get from you? What is the enticement? What kind of incentive or bribe do we get to develop the offshore?" The answer is none-zero. No money. The Norwegians will not invest any money in exploration, but the oil companies are welcome to explore. They do.
All of the major oil companies around the world involved in exploration are involved in drilling off the coast of Norway. If they find oil or natural gas, they take about 80 per cent for no investment at all but just for the privilege of having oil companies find oil, develop it, and they get 20 per cent of the total action. They are all in there, Mr. Speaker; they all think it is a fine deal-Mobil Oil, Shell, Imperial Oil and so on. Can you imagine what they must think in the board rooms when they talk about Canada providing 95 per cent of the investment capital for 25 per cent of the action on a successful development?
When it comes to accountability, Members of Parliament have a responsibility. I do not think PIP grants reflect much accountability when we ask small businessmen, men and women, to provide the taxes that are required to keep our economy going and to keep our society and its social programs in place, while we throw away billions of dollars to one particular group. That is not being very accountable to those who have elected us to represent their best interests and have asked us to collect taxes fairly and to invest the money wisely. It is a very sad comment on the accountability that we are seeing reflected here as Members of the House of Commons.
When we talk about accountability, we can talk about the accountability which must be improved as it touches the private sector, particularly through our taxation system and all of the incentives that we give to the corporate sector and to Crown corporations. Our concern within the New Democratic Party is that Bill C-24 does not provide the accountability required. As a step in the right direction, however, I want to say that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), who served on the agriculture committee, suggested when Canagrex was being debated that we needed to have a clause in the Canagrex Bill that provided the opportunity for the Auditor General to carry out a comprehensive audit on Canagrex whenever he deemed it to be appropriate.
That is the kind of accountability we would like to see in Bill C-24. We would like to see the Auditor General given the opportunity, as he or she sees fit, to carry out a comprehensive audit to ensure the taxpayers are getting a good return on their investment. We led the way on the Canagrex Bill to ensure that accountability was placed on that Crown corporation. It is the same type of accountability we would like to see now incorporated into Bill C-24.
We are concerned about the lack of a window into the subsidiaries of the Crown corporations, clearly absent from Bill C-24. We are also concerned about those Crown corporations that are non-commercial. I am thinking of the Canada Council, perhaps the CBC and the National Film Board. These are non-commercial ventures and Crown corporations. We are concerned that if they are to be incorporated somehow into the terms of reference of Bill C-24, that kind of government involvement in the Canada Council would be inappropriate for the cultural community of Canada. It would be inappropriate for the Government to be so closely involved with the cultural community and cultural developments of our nation.
We are opposed to Bill C-24 in its present form. We are especially concerned about the lack of accountability built into this Bill when it comes to Crown corporations.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat of a pleasure again to speak on this measure. Bill C-24 would institutionalize the proliferation of Crown corporations in Canada.
In beginning my remarks, I think it is important to have some historical perspective about Crown corporations. The Canadian experience has been that Crown corporations have played a very important role in our development. With the kind of geography we share in our land with something like 4,000 miles of border, six different time zones, a sparse population in many regions, and because of the different problems we have, Crown corporations have been created over the years. I think all of us would concede that without the construction of the CNR and the CPR as binding forces for our country, Canada could not have developed over the years as it has. Something like 50 years ago we had the formation of the CBC, the National Film Board, and some of the cultural agencies which helped to launch industries in Canada at a time when the private sector was not in a position to cover that
May 22, 1984

great geographic expanse nor was the population large enough to provide the kind of marketplace necessary for it to function. Because of our historical experience, the concept of Crown corporations finds easy acceptance among the Canadian people. All of us would admit that Crown corporations have played a very formative and important role in the development of Canada.
Now we move to a new phase. One of the watersheds of the new phase was the year-end interview of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1975. Speaking to one of our newsmen, he said that the marketplace was just not functioning properly and, therefore, the Government would have to intervene and get more active in the marketplace.
I think many Canadians have concluded that many government programs have been designed to make certain that the market-place was not functioning properly and that it would not be able to function. Canadians have also concluded that many of the regulations which have been put in place and a number of the Crown corporations which have been instituted over the years were there for no other reason but to ensure that the marketplace would not and could not function properly; then the Government would have a reason to move in and to substantiate the remarks of the Prime Minister in December, 1975, when he said that the marketplace was not functioning properly.
I am not perpetuating simple, idle gossip. I would like to refer to the example of the insulation business. All of us understand that the insulation business, glass wool and rockwool, is a fairly prosperous and thriving business in Canada. There are many good companies providing healthy competition in the marketplace. All of them are doing good work. Perhaps they need some supervision, but they are doing good work. However, several years ago Petro-Canada, that new national institute, began to proliferate and formed a new company called "Canertech". It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Petro-Canada. It began its own life cycle and began to spawn its own companies. It purchased a substantial interest in a company known as Pacific Enercon, a company that was begun by an American, a Californian. It was a multi-million dollar business, but it was losing money and was apparently about to go bankrupt. That is just the kind of company Canertech was looking for, so it invested something like $4 million in this losing company. Then it began operations in the rock-wool insulation business but it is still losing money.
Now we have a situation where Pacific Enercon with tax dollars is injecting a new player into the marketplace. The insulation business was doing all right before, and now Pacific Enercon, with our tax dollars, can compete unfairly in the marketplace and ensure with our subsidies that it can create havoc for the other insulation companies. Government corporations have now entered into a new era. They are there to compete unfairly with healthy companies and with that competition try to ensure that healthy companies, which under
Financial Administration Act
normal circumstances would do all right, fail and then that segment of the marketplace is left for them.
Bill C-24 is no ordinary housekeeping Bill to tidy up interrelationships among Crown corporations. It is a Bill to ensure that unfair competition will be a permanent factor within the marketplace. This will come about as a result of several key measures in the Bill. The first is that Cabinet can issue directives to any parent Crown corporations. Clause 154 enables Cabinet to issue directives to Crown corporations and to alter the working arrangements within them. According to this clause directives can be issued and, while they are tabled in the House of Commons 15 days after the beginning of the next sitting, they do not have to be tabled if the Minister feels that it would be detrimental to the commercial interests of a Crown corporation. There we have the institutionalizing of unfair competition.
If the Government believes in Crown corporations, it should let them compete on a fair basis. If it is to be fair, it must be fair for all players. However, a provision in the Bill allows the Minister to withhold vital information on how a Crown corporation is functioning.
Second, Cabinet can review all parent Crown corporation by-laws with power to change those by-laws. Third, Clause 127 allows Crown corporations to indemnify their representatives against civil, criminal or administrative action. That is about as ominous a provision as there could be. In effect, it says that Crown corporations under these provisions will be able to do things which if not illegal are certainly unethical, and that if they are taken to court, tax dollars could be used to pay court costs so that they can defend themselves.
We have that kind of attitude already in the fact that Crown corporations are a law unto themselves. I wrote a letter to Canertech several months ago. I received this reply: "I am not in a position to discuss the company's current financial situation". Here we have a Crown corporation operating with tax dollars as though it is a private enterprise, but saying that it is not accountable to a Member of Parliament and will not divulge its financial information.
These are some matters which seriously infringe upon the rights of the market-place. I contend that they are designed to ensure that the market-place cannot function and the Government has an excuse to move in.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, certainly it should be evident to every Member of Parliament that there is a need for Crown corporations legislation to ensure some element of accountability and control over the number of Crown corporations we have today.
In recent days the Government released a booklet prepared by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat entitled Crown Corporations and Other Canadian Government Corporate Interests. It is dated March, 1984 and it is interesting in that the Government attempts to catalogue the number of Crown corporations in which it has an involvement, either through direct ownership or through joint ownership or other investment. The booklet lists the number of Crown corporations,

May 22, 1984
Financial Administration Act
which it defines as corporations wholly owned by the federal Government. We find that between December, 1982 and March, 1984 the number of corporations wholly owned by the Government of Canada increased from 186 to 195.
I would be prepared to bet that very few Members of the House of Commons could name the nine new Crown corporations if they were asked. Indeed, very few Member of Parliament or very few Canadians could list more than a couple of dozen of the 195 Crown corporations which are in existence at the present time.
In a situation where the Government allows Crown corporations to proliferate with virtually no control, where Members of Parliament are unaware of the existence of many of these Crown corporations, and where we have example after example of extremely poor management, cost overruns and cases where Crown corporations have to return to the public treasury to ask Canadian taxpayers to bail them out, there is something very seriously wrong. One need look no further than at the front page of the business section of today's edition of The Toronto Star where one will find the headline "Will Ottawa bail out ailing nuclear firm?" In part the article reads:
Taxpayers may have to cough up millions to revive Candu reactor and its industry.
It refers to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, another federal Crown corporation which is set to lose literally hundreds of millions of dollars by the time it is through. There is no doubt as to the need for comprehensive legislation to deal with the whole issue of Crown corporations.
The issue before the House today, as the Government tries to cut off debate on this Crown corporations legislation, is whether the Bill does what it is supposed to do. Does it increase parliamentary control? Does it improve management? Does it allow boards of directors of Crown corporations to perform their function?
The answer to those questions is that the Bill does not do what it is alleged to do. For example, in the area of creation, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) leaves the impression with Members of Parliament and with the public that this Bill will plug Parliament back in and ensure that it is consulted before the creation of a Crown corporation. Of course, if a corporation were subsidiary, Parliament would have no role to play.
[DOT] (U50)
We will find in the future that there will likely never again be a special Act of incorporation such as there was for Petro-Canada, Air Canada or the CBC which allowed Parliament to debate the essence of a corporation and to set its structure and spell out its mandate. Instead, these companies will be incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act and there will be a limited debate in Parliament of seven hours in the House of Commons and seven hours in the Senate, with a brief committee study. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, that undermines Parliament's role rather than strengthens it.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, even that limited procedure for parliamentary control is a bit of a sham because the Government
leaves the impression that there would at least be the element of control when creating new parent companies of Parliament being able to look at an Order in Council and debate it in the House for at least seven hours. In fact, there is nothing in this Bill that binds the Crown to that. In fact, the Bill does not change the status quo. A Cabinet Minister of the Government will be able to incorporate new Crown corporations and do so without one minute's parliamentary debate or parliamentary approval.
Dr. Ed Clark, the man in the Treasury Board secretariat who is responsible for Crown corporations policy, told the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants that the Department had in fact received a legal opinion from the Department of Justice which indicated that this Bill was binding on the Crown. In fact, that was totally false. The Government has received no such opinion. If indeed the Government claims that it has received such an opinion, let Dr. Clark or the President of the Treasury Board produce that opinion. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, since that time, Dr. Clark has communicated with the President of the Treasury Board and has denied that he ever made the statement that others witnessed him making, and has indeed confessed that there is no such opinion from the Department of Justice which indicates that this Bill is binding on the Crown.
If the President of the Treasury Board wishes to check the veracity of Dr. Clark's assertion that he in fact never made a comment claiming that there was such a legal opinion, let him ask other people who were at the meeting. They would be prepared to give their point of view and I think it would be a useful test of Dr. Clark's reliability.
Since that time, the Treasury Board has attempted to obtain legal opinions indicating that this would be binding on the Crown and it found that just the opposite was the case. In fact, that provision in this Bill is not binding on the Crown and even the limited procedures for parliamentary control do not apply over the incorporation of new Crown corporations. Business could continue to be done as usual. When we have that sort of sham, an attempt to subvert parliamentary control in the name of promoting parliamentary control, you can see, Mr. Speaker, why we oppose this Bill so strongly.
What about the function of management, Mr. Speaker? What we saw in the cases of Canadair and de Havilland were massive cost overruns, massive public subsidies and a complete failure on the part of the board of directors to do its work. One of the things the Government says it wants to do is beef up the role of boards of directors, yet it would do just the opposite. Cabinet would have the right to choose the chief executive officer and the auditor. Cabinet would even have the right not only to set their salaries but also to write by-laws for Crown corporations. What would be the function of boards of directors in the future other than to collect per diems and create a resting place for defeated Liberal candidates? Surely, Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about promoting parliamentary control and improved management of Crown corporations, then we are entitled to much better legislation than this.

May 22, 1984

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this Bill is about to be forced into committee. Government Members say that there has been enough parliamentary debate. Are they prepared to allow the public to appear in committee? The word that is being put out by the Treasury Board at the present time is that the Government intends, after it forces this Bill through the House, to prevent any outside witnesses from coming before the committee.
Members of this side of the House believe that the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Business Council on National Issues, the Consumers' Association of Canada and others not only have a right but perhaps a responsibility to appear before the committee and state their views. Yet what the Government wants is not only to gag Parliament but to gag the private sector as well and to prevent Canadians from presenting their points of view on this particular issue.
It looks like the Government is planning to spend one day in committee to discuss a Bill of this nature and scope. If anything ever pointed out how grievously flawed this Bill is and how little interest the Government has in allowing some parliamentary control over Crown corporations, it is the Government's attitude toward this Bill, the surreptitious nature of what it is trying to do behind the veil that it is putting in front of Parliament and its attempt to gag Parliament and block participation by the public in discussion of this Bill. Those things certainly indicate what the Government's attitude is toward control over Crown corporations.
At the end of this day, Mr. Speaker, when we are forced to vote on this Bill, Hon. Members on this side will oppose the Bill and will oppose it as strongly as we can. It is a bad Bill and a dangerous measure. The methods that have been used by the Government to force this Bill through the House and to prevent public and parliamentary debate on the legislation speak volumes about the Government's attitude. That should give every Canadian who believes that it is time to bring about some parliamentary control over Crown corporations and to ensure that the public's tax dollars are properly respected some cause for concern. At the end of this day, we will be voting to oppose this Bill and will be going to committee with the demand that private individuals and organizations from the private sector be permitted an opportunity to speak on this Bill, so that the Government will not simply be able to ram this Bill into law without proper scrutiny.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I rise to speak to the subject matter of Bill C-24 today. The bad news, of course, is that I must speak | under the circumstance of time allocation or, in not so diplomatic language, closure.
The Government is a past master at limiting debate on legislation it wants to push through the House no matter what the costs, or consequences to either the Canadian public or Parliament. I am given to understand that the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wants this Bill pushed through the House before he retires in June. That is the reason for time allocation, Mr. Speaker. I suppose that after 16 years of
Financial Administration Act
having Crown corporations multiplying like rabbits with many of them running amok without proper controls on their activities, the Prime Minister wishes to be noted in the history books as the one who sought to control the financial morass that he and his various Cabinets helped create.
It is with pleasure, however, that I rise to support the motion standing in the name of my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), which would provide that the Bill not be read a second time now but in six months hence; in effect, a six months' hoist. I support that recommendation for two very important reasons. The first is that the Bill as drafted is badly flawed. My colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party have been pointing that out during the whole of second reading and there is no time for me to reiterate these concerns except to note that they are legitimate and very serious concerns that must be addressed by the Government before it tries to ram this legislation through the House.
Rising at this time, Mr. Speaker, also allows me to put clearly on the record my Party's views concerning the Canada Council and its relationship to Bill C-24, I have been supporting the six months' hoist of the present Bill because the Bill violates an important and long-standing principle which up until now all Parties in this House stood for and supported, the principle of having an arm's length relationship between the government of the day and its cultural agencies. This Bill violates that principle of independence from government, Mr. Speaker, by bringing the Canada Council under the authority of the Financial Administration Act. This is unprecedented and, in my opinion, insupportable.
The arm's length principle is based upon the belief that we should ensure that our cultural and artistic life be separate and distinct from our political life and that it should be free from political interference and control. The Massey Commission accepted this principle and recommended that the Canada Council be based upon the example of the Arts Council of Great Britain which has the state as patron but has an arm's length relationship with the government. The support and funding it receives is based upon artistic purposes and not political ones. This Bill blurs and distorts that principle.
It must be asked why it is necessary to introduce the Canada Council to a new structure for scrutiny and then spell out restrictions on interference. Clause 99(7) deals with this, Mr. Speaker. The question is why? I am sure we can all debate the reasons. The Canada Council itself understands the serious consequences of its being added to the FAA schedule and that is why it is speaking out so strongly against this Bill. It remembers only too well what happened in 1978 when the government of the day reduced the grant to the art bank by $800,000.
The then Secretary of State who is now the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) was outraged that the Canada Council should assert its independence of what he felt its priorities should be. The Canada Council was doing what it had the right and legislative provision to do. It was acting independently of the Government in the manner in which it was set up to act.

May 22, 1984
Financial Administration Act
The Canada Council itself, in summarizing its concerns about Bill C-24, said this:
It is difficult to predict how the powers in the Bill would be used, but the following are controls which are possible under the provisions of the Bill:
Within the broad definition of the arts in the Canada Council Act, the government could determine which art forms the Council will and will not support.
The government could control the allocation of the Council's budget to particular disciplines, to theatre as opposed to visual arts, music as opposed to literature, et cetera. It could specify what types of artistic activity in each art form will be funded and in what amounts.
The Liberal Government has been treating the Canada Council in a way that we find unacceptable. The report of the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee-the Applebaum-Hebert Committee-stated:
Public policy should facilitate self-expression, not control or organize it.
The Applebaum-Hebert report studied this issue and judged its importance to be so fundamental to its purpose that it set out as its first recommendation the unique and sensitive nature of the cultural agencies. The first recommendation read:
The status of federal cultural agencies should be defined in a new Cultural Agencies Act, in recognition of the fact that government activity in culture and the arts is subject to special considerations requiring a distinctive measure of autonomy. The provisions of this statute should prevail wherever they may conflict with those of the Financial Administration Act or the proposed Government Organization Act.
The Applebaum-Hebert report went on to state the opinion that, due to the sensitive functions of the cultural agencies, they should also be exempt from political direction in the form of ministerial directives of either a general or a specific nature.
It should be pointed out that the Liberal Government has rejected these ideas. It did not even consider how to deal with the cultural agencies except through the blanket legislation which was drafted to ensure accountability of Crown corporations such as de Havilland, Canadair, AECL and the Canada Sports Pool Corporation. The Government simply added the Canada Council to the list as if it was in the same category. It is not.
The Canada Council is presently accountable to Parliament. It provides detailed reports on how and why its funds are disbursed to the cultural and artistic community. Its representatives are available to come before committees of the House to give explanations for their judgments and expenditures and to defend them. Under Section 22 of the Canada Council Act, the Auditor General has the authority to audit the accounts and financial transactions of the Council. This Government is not interested in accountability. It is interested in politicizing the process of the distribution of cultural funds to a greater extent, in the same way as it has politicized the funds provided to assist those Canadians who are unemployed. The Government will politicize anything it can get its hands on. To give it the legislative approval to do so would be foolhardy and wrong. The arts community recognizes this and has voiced its disapproval.
If the Government is truly interested in not controlling the funds allocated to cultural agencies and the political abuse which is attached to that, then let it introduce a Cultural Agencies Act, as was recommended by Applebaum-Hebert, which will set out procedures and guidelines for these sensitive agencies. Let the Government recognize, in proper statute, the rights and independence of all the agencies so that they cannot be tampered with in the way this Bill enables the Government to do so.
At the very least, I hope the Government will seriously consider the advisability of amending the schedule to delete reference to the Canada Council. As it stands now, Bill C-24 is inappropriate for the Canada Council. It should be amended to ensure that the independence of the Council and the arm's length principle which is so fundamental to our democracy are not compromised or infringed upon. The Canada Council should not be covered by Bill C-24.
In conclusion, I would like to refer to a commentary which was given on CBC-FM radio by my friend, Sarah Jennings, in which she pointed out:
-the Tories are generally in support of the objectives of this Bill in terms of the larger issue, which is financial accountability for these federal Crown agencies.
She indicated that the Bill must come to grips with the cultural issue. She continued:
-they're trying to pull their cultural policy together, and honestly I don't think they've even addressed themselves to the issue.
As far as Bill C-24 and the Canada Council are concerned, we most certainly are addressing ourselves to this issue.


Mr. Lome McCuish (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on Bill C-24 and on the suggested amendment by my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), that it be hoisted for a six-month period.
Bill C-24 purports to be a Bill which will enhance the control of government and Parliament over Crown corporations. Certainly, that in itself is laudable, given the proliferation and the record of Crown corporations to date. It is obvious that control mechanisms are sorely needed. However, the legislation which has been presented to the House does not represent an improvement to an entirely offensive situation. What we have before us is a toothless piece of legislation which will do little to bring Crown corporations under parliamentary scrutiny and control.
Given the scandalous performance of Crown corporations, it is difficult to understand why this Government does not want to make Crown corporations accountable. It is obvious that they need assistance. The de Havilland and Canadair Fiascos are typical examples of why Parliament should be able to scrutinize this whimsical abuse of the public purse. When the money of the people who elected us to serve them is given to well-paid executives in the form of bonuses, something has gone awry, especially when the bonuses are given to executives of a company which has suffered catastrophic losses-losses to the taxpayers of Canada.
May 22, 1984

There are other not so well-known examples of financial surrealism. In my Province of British Columbia, forestry is the largest economic activity. It generates more direct and indirect government revenue and employment than any other sector of that economy. The wealth comes from the forests of British Columbia, which are 95 per cent owned by British Columbians. At the present time, the forestry industry in British Columbia is in a mild recovery stage.
It is not with little dismay that we find the Export Development Corporation financing forest development projects in Mexico, Peru and Poland. These developments will compete with the forest product exports of British Columbia. At a time when the British Columbia forest industry is experiencing a fragile recovery, a Crown corporation gives it a competitive slap. The money used for development in Mexico, Peru and Poland is sorely needed by the Canadian forest industry to give it the competitive edge it needs in international markets.
The list of Crown corporation shortcomings is frightfully long. I refer to these examples in order to demonstrate the necessity of accountability. Supposedly, the Government which has brought forward Bill C-24 understands the need for ministerial responsibility, control of proliferation and accountability-
In a brochure entitled New Legislative Proposals for the Control and Accountability of Crown Corporations, the Government reveals that new measures are needed to strengthen the control and accountability of Crown corporations. How does the Government think this can be achieved? It can be achieved by clarifying the roles and responsibilities of Parliament, government, boards of directors and managers of Crown corporations. The Government then decides that by amending the Financial Administration Act it can strengthen the controls and accountability of Crown corporations. Thus we are presented with Bill C-24.
On March 15, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) said that Bill C-24 would "clarify the roles and responsibilities of Parliament". When we examine the nuts and bolts of the legislation we find that the role of Parliament is indeed clarified. The role of Parliament is to be as insufficient as it always was. Parliament will have no control whatsoever over the creation of subsidies by Crown corporations. Naturally, this is exactly the area in which we have witnessed the greatest proliferation of Crown corporations.
Bill C-24 also allows a Minister to create a Crown corporation if he or she already has the power to do so through an existing Act of Parliament. There are several instances in which this can be done. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) could incorporate new parent Crown corporations through the existing Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act or through the existing Atomic Energy Control Act. The Minister would not even have to come near Parliament if he desired to establish a new Crown corporation.
Financial Administration Act
We have as well the situation where a Minister might table a special Act in Parliament in order to incorporate a Crown corporation. What a startling occurrence this would be. Parliament would actually be consulted. However, review would be limited to 30 days in committee and seven hours of debate in the House. Closure of this nature, Mr. Speaker, is tantamount to criminal. What starts as a good idea ends up being a cruel joke. Is the Government seriously going to allow only seven hours of debate on matters of such import to the people of Canada? Obviously the Government intends to treat Parliament's role as it always has-as a charade.
Another area which the Government has not come to grips with is ministerial accountability. Bill C-24 gives authority to Cabinet or to the Treasury Board. Here we have groups of Ministers who are supposed to be accountable. We will not have accountability until an individual Minister is given responsibility. It is a fact that we will not have accountability while authority rests with groups rather than with individuals. If we need proof of this, all we have to do is look at Canadair or de Havilland. When the chips were down no one was accountable.
Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act, has many more flaws than those which I have touched upon. For instance, there is an insufficient role for the boards of directors. Essentially boards will be advisory councils without the hands-on authority which is needed in the leadership of Crown corporations. To make Crown corporations efficient there has to be an onus of responsibility placed on the board of directors. Responsibility has not been the forte of this Government and Bill C-24 certainly symbolizes that fact. This Bill is supposed to correct many of the shortcomings in the relationship between Parliament and Crown corporations, but it does not. It makes a mockery of what Parliament is supposed to be. We are not dealing with a matter which has many possible directions; we are dealing with a matter which has only the right direction. Bill C-24 demonstrates that again the Government is lost.
This Bill should be hoisted for six months so that a responsible government can introduce legislation which will give Canadians confidence in how the public purse is used.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I also want to join in the debate on Bill C-24. Quite frankly, I cannot think of another Bill which demonstrates more clearly the difference between a government which has been in power too long and a Party in opposition which wants to change that government. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if we in the Opposition had been in power 20, 30 or 40 years, with a few brief "hiccups" in history when there was a change-and in the words of Mr. Pickersgill many years ago, the Tories are like the measles; everyone has to get them every so often, but when you have recovered, put the Liberals back in power-perhaps our criticisms of the serious implications of Bill C-24 would not be as strong.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, if anyone has a disease, it is the Government across the way, and it is a lot more serious than measles. It is called "Crown corporationitis". If there is one

May 22, 1984
Financial Administration Act
thing at all which is perhaps the hallmark of a government which has been in power too long, it is when it believes that Crown corporations which are not accountable to the Parliament of Canada are the way to run the country.
You have sat in that Chair, Mr. Speaker, as well as other chairs in this House, and graced them with your wisdom. You have seen, as I have, how this Government has delved into the pockets of the taxpayer without accountability as to why it did so. If you wanted to be objective, Mr. Speaker-and I do not want necessarily to be objective-on that one test alone, you would agree that Crown corporationitis is a disease which Canadians have to cut out and cast out whenever they have the chance.
It was not so long ago, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister of the day on wage and income policy said to the Canadian public: "You cannot go for the Tories because 'zap' your wages are frozen, there is a hole in your pocketbook and you are going to be out on the street". Well, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-24, together with the sad record of this Government and its Crown corporations, be it de Havilland, Canadair or Air Canada, with some of its problems of political appointees in top posts, is where the taxpayers are really getting zapped. There has been $1.4 billion spent by Canadair alone without any accountability to this Parliament. It has the largest single business defalcation and deficit spending in the history of Canada.
When we in this Party talk about Bill C-24-and quite frankly, the Government thinks we have talked a little too long on the implications of this Bill-in effect, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a parallel government. That is what Bill C-24 is; it is a government of Crown corporations. In 1962 there were 28 Crown corporations responsible for approximately $8.4 billion. In 1984 the number had grown to over 300 Crown corporations of different types of class and category. I appreciate they are not directly owned; there are joint ventures. However, there are over 315 Crown corporations now responsible for $67 billion. Just in terms of the size of the employees involved, Mr. Speaker, when I say it is a "parallel government", they now total over 260,000 as compared to the Public Service in federal Government departments which has a total of 239,000 employees, separate and apart from the Armed Services where there are another 84,000.
Bill C-24, the Crown corporations Bill, is supposed to do so much in bringing Crown corporations within the realm of Parliament. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), addressed this subject in his speech. As well, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), in his penetrating address made to this House, admittedly a few "moons" ago-but there has, Mr. Speaker, been other business which has engaged Parliament- analyzed the principles of this Bill. Any Hon. Member, be it on the Government side or the Opposition side, who read the speech made by the Hon. Member for Calgary South would not be in favour of having this Bill go forward without serious substantive amendments, and we have not had any indication from the Government that there are going to be any serious
substantive amendments when we get into committee. That is why Hon. Members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, aided and abetted from time to time by Hon. Members to the left, are speaking out on this Bill, because it is like speaking on the whole government process.
I am not going to get into the details of the lack of accountability and the fact that the Government has not learned anything from the Lambert report or the reports of the Auditor General which say, among other things, that Crown corporations must be accountable. There is a cogent paragraph in the Auditor General's report of 1982 which I quote:
It may be helpful in visualizing the scale of the problem to think of the whole group as an enormous iceberg floating lazily in the foggy Atlantic; silent, majestic, awesome. The public tends to see only the upper portions ... the giants like CNR, Petro-Can, CBC .. . The great bulk of the iceberg below the surface is less spectacular, less likely to attract public interest, less likely to receive the attention of Parliament, yet costly to taxpayers.
As has been said here earlier this morning, Mr. Speaker, I defy almost any Hon. Member of Parliament to name 50 of the Crown corporations, let alone attempt to name the 315; and I will not even mention the Crown corporations which were created just this year, all by Cabinet fiat. Bill C-24, Mr. Speaker, which was supposed to introduce accountability to this parallel government, which spends more money and employs more people than the regular departments of government, does not introduce that accountability. It is a charade, a mockery of the word.
I am not going to go into all the arguments which have been made earlier. I just want to review one very specific matter in the limited time allotted to me because we are under closure and we know the guillotine will fall later this afternoon. If there was any reason why Members should participate vigorously in this debate, it is the perennial one, the one which applied under the old legislation and which is continued under Bill C-24. We as Members of Parliament do not know what the top executives of Crown corporations are paid as the supposed representatives of the people. We all know what a Member of Parliament gets paid. Goodness gracious, the third item on the CBC News the other day was that some Members of Parliament did not pay their bills in the parliamentary restaurant. You can go to a first, second, third or fourth class restaurant and use some type of credit card. They were blowing up tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, there were massacres somewhere else, and the third item of business on the CBC was that credit privileges were curtailed for Members of Parliament because they were too chintzy to pay or the Sergeant-at-Arms or the Speaker had lost control. I am not going to dignify that matter by debating it here and, in effect, insulting Members of Parliament, but I can tell you that while driving through my beautiful riding there were other items more important.
At least the public know that we get paid a certain amount and we get a certain allowance, but do I know what Michael Warren gets as President of Canada Post? Do I know what my illustrious friend, the chameleon of the political walk, the Hon.
May 22, 1984

Jack Horner as he was then called, retiree Chairman of the CN, do I know what he got? Do I know what Joel Bell gets as President of CDIC?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, since you have given me the finger salute made famous by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Salmon Arm, although you did it just to give me a warning, I would like to read into the record a report from the Ottawa Citizen dated November 21, 1983, referring to about 40 senior executives of Crown corporations and other cabinet appointees who can be paid a maximum of $227,900 a year. That is almost as much as the Prime Minister receives, almost four times as much as an MP. It says:
The figure, released publicly for what appears to be the first time, is much higher than previously thought and surprised the chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, charged with monitoring government spending-
This was a 264-page report dated June 30 and tabled quietly in the House of Commons. It refers to "non-classified positions". I have named some of them, such as Joel Bell, President of CDIC, Claude Taylor, President of Air Canada, Bill Hopper, Chairman of Petro-Canada, Pierre Juneau, President of the CBC, and Michael Warren, President of Canada Post. There are many others. The article goes on:
Others in the special category include CBC executive vice-president W. T. Armstrong, Canadian Egg Marketing Agency chairman Harold Crossman, Canada Museums Construction Corp. chairman Jean Sutherland Boggs and president Hector McIntyre.
All of these people can get between $63,000 and $227,900 a year when we thought they were in the $100,000 to $125,000 range. Yet not one of them has to answer a question when they appear before a Commons committee. Until we start getting into those basics, let alone the fundamentals of the Bill, then I say Members of Parliament should talk for many moons before this Bill passes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I think it will be just as well if I put on the record, in view of the remark of the last speaker, that the Chair is trying to be helpful to Members in indicating how much time remains in their speeches.


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed unfortunate that we have to consume the valuable time of this House to debate a motion the Government has introduced to prevent further debate on a much more important item of business. That is, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-24, the Government's half-hearted and dim-witted attempt to deal with the problem which has caused irreparable damage to our country over at least the past decade. That problem arises from this Government's use of Crown corporations as an excuse for its inability to deal with the affairs of the day in an open and straightforward way in the forum of the House of Commons where all the people of Canada can be witness.
Look back to the time when VIA Rail was created, Mr. Speaker. This was done through a $1 vote in this House. It was an estimate provision and therefore we could not debate all of the elements of the proposed new passenger rail service. VIA Rail resulted from an amalgamation of equipment owned by
Financial Administration Act
CN and CP and other regional railways. It was to create a national passenger rail system and it has lost money every year since. This was not necessarily because VIA Rail was a bad idea, but because there was no opportunity for us to determine the extent to which VIA Rail would be free to raise money in the financial markets or the degree of public subsidy it could expect in the interest of providing services designated as a public convenience and necessity. Instead, the Government arbitrarily decided to create a passenger rail corporation without five minutes' worth of reference to the duly elected representatives of the people in this House of Commons. There was no undertaking to ensure that top level expertise would be placed on the board of that corporation, people with experience which would make them proficient in the management and conduct of this rail system.
When we look at the record of many of our other Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker, we see a similar kind of history. People have been brought in for political and other reasons as chairman of a board of directors. In the private sector a board of directors is a group of people who are accountable to their shareholders. But under the Liberals a board of directors is merely a place to retire worn-out Liberals who in many cases could never get themselves elected to any office, and some who were elected but defeated and had to have a place of rest. They were put in charge of pulling the levers of power of corporations managing millions of taxpayers' dollars without reference to this Parliament.
When do we have an opportunity to debate the necessity of an annual subsidy to the CBC or other major Crown corporations? For example, Canada Post receives a subsidy which may never ever be recovered. When do Members of Parliament have an opportunity to debate the distinction between Crown corporations which serves some national purpose, some political need, as opposed to those which are competing openly with the private sector with the benefit of government financial support and no accountability to Parliament or the laws which govern their private sector counterparts? Why is it that Crown corporations are immune from the obligation to pay property taxes, for example? Why is it that Crown corporations are immune from the requirement to pay income taxes, as do the companies with which they compete?
All of these questions, Mr. Speaker, ought to be thoroughly examined in the House of Commons. I, for one, find it reprehensible, as do my colleagues, that the Government would bring in a motion to suspend debate at the second reading stage with the expectation that the Government also intends to foreclose the appearance and presentation of different perspectives at the committee stage while limiting the amount of time that the standing committee will be allowed to review this Bill.
I would like to remind Hon. Members of 1980 when the Government introduced and passed the new Canada Post Corporation Act. This was an exceptional case where a new Crown corporation was created with a reasonable amount of

May 22, 1984
Financial Administration Act
debate in Parliament. However, in hindsight it is not even clear that the recommendations which came from the Opposition side, the amendments which were proposed and largely ignored by the Government, would have made any difference. The Government was eliminating the title of Postmaster General to avoid the need for a responsible Minister to stand in the House and take it on the nose for all of the problems that the Canadian people were and still are experiencing with the Canadian postal service. I know that the appointed President of the Canada Post Corporation has been doing his best to sort out the mess at Canada Post. I do not believe that he has been using Parliament, the members of a standing committee or the House of Commons to assist in rectifying this difficulty.
The seriousness of the problem is outlined in a recent newspaper article which compares the Canada Post Corporation with the United States postal service which operates as a branch of the Internal Revenue Service in the U.S. In order to get the Post Office out of the hair of the politicians, the Government created a Crown corporation. These are the consequences. The deficit for the 1983 fiscal year was still $440 million. Productivity was up somewhat, but the cost of mailing a letter was to remain at 32 cents at least for the coming year. That sounds reassuring until we compare that with the situation in the United States, where, with no public funding and a 20-cent postage stamp, the American post office recorded its second consecutive year in the black with a surplus of $616 million and a productivity level 44 per cent higher than its Canadian counterpart. The U.S. postal service pays wages which, when adjusted for the differential values of the Canadian and U.S. dollars, are still 10 per cent higher than wages paid to postal staff in Canada.
Our colleagues on the Government benches tend to believe that they and their political appointees can run business better than the private sector. Why is it, then, that in the U.S. the citizen pays 20 cents to mail a letter and in Canada we pay 32 cents and absorb a deficit of close to $.5 billion annually?
The reason really has to do with the fundamental questions which are before the House at this time. They ought to be debated at much greater length than we are presently being given the opportunity to do. It really has to do with the illusion of change which the Government is trying to create by bringing a number of Bills through Parliament in a hurry before it goes out with a final gasp to meet the Canadian people and argue that it deserves another chance. It is a ruse to put this Bill before the House at the present time and then to limit debate when the Government has had 10 years to deal with this question. It is merely trying to create an illusion in the eyes of the Canadian people. As the Government has done in every previous election it has won, through sleight-of-hand and some misrepresentation it has suggested to the Canadian people that everything will be better in the future if it is re-elected.
I think the Canadian people are much brighter this time as they contemplate the position in which they will place their x on the ballot in the next election. They are going to realize that it is the same tired old Government playing the same old
tricks on the Canadian people as an excuse for its inability to bring expertise and proficiency into the management of our national affairs, to deal with the tremendous wastage and incompetence of the management structures of many of our Crown corporations, and to face the question of sunset comprehensive auditing and other matters in a more serious and responsible way. I trust the Government will hear these words and allow this debate to continue, rather than putting the garrotte on us once again as it has done so often in this present session of Parliament.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate again in the debate on Bill C-24, an Act which allegedly would make Crown corporations accountable to Parliament. However, in the true Liberal tradition, there are escape clauses which take the teeth out of the Bill. The Government would not even accede to a six-month hoist for a meaningful discussion period to enable meaningful amendments to be brought forward.
I admit that Parliament will get a say in the creation of new parent Crown corporations, but of course the Cabinet will regulate the proliferation of Crown subsidiaries. Rather, the Cabinet will be empowered to do so. However, past experience has shown that we can expect little in the way of restraint when it comes to new opportunities to intervene in the free marketplace with yet another arm of the octopus which has become known as the Trudeau Government. The result is bankrupt Crown corporations. That is really what they are; they are propped up by government financing. In reality they are Crown corpses. The Canada Development Investment Corporation is proof enough of that.
The Auditor General calls them sub-governments. In reality they are sub-governments, sub-human Crown corpses. With a federal election looming, we can expect many more subsidiaries to be created in order to provide refuge for Liberals who are running scared and looking for that refuge. In fact, the process is already under way.
The number of Crown corporations has increased from 307 in 1981 to 336 at the present time. While the number of parent corporations has decreased from 76 to 67, the number of subsidiaries has gone up from 110 to 128. Where is the accountability? Other corporate investments have also increased, from 94 in 1981 to 112 today. The CDIC now has 88,000 employees and has a finger in everything from aircraft production to farm machinery to office technology to energy. And most of these Crown corporations are not working properly. This Bill will do absolutely nothing to control the proliferation of the kind demonstrated by the CDIC.
Of course, this is consistent with the Liberal approach to governing. Where a problem exists, they throw taxpayers' money at it. Where a problem does not exist, they create one by setting up a Crown corporation and funnelling our money into it. We end up with the same negative results and some more Crown corpses. These government creations are not accountable to Parliament now, and they will not be if this Bill ever becomes law. We intend to see that it does not, at least not in its present form. Now we have closure looming over us
May 22, 1984

which limits debate to seven hours. That is some accountability! Where is the accountability of Canadair, de Havilland and Canada Post? Again, Mr. Speaker, these are Crown corpses.
The need for true accountability to this institution, which is not provided by this Bill, has been mentioned repeatedly by my colleagues throughout this debate and it cannot be stressed enough. Nowhere is the need more evident than in another Bill which is currently before the House. Bill C-32, to establish a peace institute, is an attempt to create a further Crown corporation which will be under the control of Cabinet. Cabinet will have the power to appoint directors and members, to set their fees, to decide where the institute will be located and to dictate what kind of research shall be carried out. Parliament will not have a say in these decisions. Of course, this is all in the spirit of the true Liberal tradition.
Bill C-32 is not off to a good start. Clause 4(c) states that the institute's purpose is to "encourage public discussion of international peace and security issues". The most important debate should take place right here, yet the Government is anxious to push the Bill through. Why the rush? Let me pledge here and now my personal and my Party's total support to peace. Who in their right mind would oppose peace? However, what we do oppose is an attempt to increase Cabinet control over yet another Crown corporation. Both Bill C-24 and C-32 do exactly that.
How can we trust a Cabinet that includes the likes of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan)? In a recent interview with the "Trudeau Star" he said that "I am probably responsible for more free trade than anybody". This is the same Minister that brought us Canagrex, a Crown corporation that was set up to bring about state control of the agricultural industry and to buy and sell on the open market. It can be the owner of property, a right that is denied us in the Constitution. He added that he would like to see all the big Crown corporations run in the same way as Canagrex. Heaven help the farmers! Heaven help the rest of the economy, and with the latest Crown corporation, heaven help peace.
Let me illustrate for a moment the Liberal Government's commitment to accountability in Parliament. If ever a Member could rise in his place in righteous indignation, this is the time. Again the Government has stifled debate by the use of closure on something as important as Crown corporations. Billions of taxpayers' money has gone down the drain as a result of that lack of accountability.
From 1980 to the middle of last year, the Government has used or threatened closure and time allocation 22 times. This is totally in keeping with a government that rules by Order in Council, and as mentioned by one of my colleagues, rules by fiat. Between 1969 and 1982, the Prime Minister's Government passed 39,048 Orders in Council, an average of 3,245 a year. Some accountability! In the years 1977, 1978, 1980 and 1981, there were 15,002 Orders in Council passed, an average of 3,750 a year. The Bill before us today will uphold that tradition, the corroding of free speech.
Financial Administration Act
With increased accountability to Parliament, we would perhaps see less of the types of activities pointed out last week by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga). According to documents in his possession, Mr. Hopper of Petro-Canada and James Scurr, a senior vice-president, purchased used furniture and appliances from the Crown corporation at bargain basement prices. With increased accountability we would not see executives who mismanage ailing aircraft companies receiving substantial bonuses while two million Canadians are looking for work. Do we even know how much they are paid? As pointed out by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), we have no idea how much they make, except too much. Nor would we have an individual who has never been able to get elected placed in charge of a multi-billion dollar empire of state-owned companies. He is the person whose name is synonymous with a pint-sized automobile.
According to an article in The Citizen on May 18, Elizabeth Charlebois, head of the International Development Research Centre, forged her documents and will not even be fired, just asked to let go. Now they will not divulge her salary, according to Mr. Head, another Trudeau protege. They are concerned about whether she will receive her severance pay, not about what happened to Canada and what is happening to CDIC.
I have many more comments to make about the closure aspect of this Bill and about Crown corporations in general. However, let me say in conclusion that I urge all Members to defeat this closure motion and the Crown corporations Bill. Let us restore accountability to this institution.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to spend a few moments talking about four or five Crown corporations. Historically, Crown corporations have contributed a great deal to Canada and will continue to do so in the future.
Let me deal with Air Canada first. When I was preparing to come to work this morning I was reminded of the seat sale which Air Canada had last fall. Its seat sale provided many low prices which gave some Canadians the opportunity to travel at less cost. However, this year it has a $19 billion deficit which will somehow have to be made up. Inevitably the responsibility for that deficit falls on the taxpayer. As one late Member of Parliament said, Mr. Speaker, there is only one taxpayer, you and I.
The current debt faced by Air Canada as a result of management programs that were made in direct competition with other private enterprise airlines is now the responsibility of the taxpayer. It now appears that those management decisions to provide low-cost air fares is very questionable in terms of the net effect on the numbers travelling on the airline and the effect on other competitors in the air passenger travel service.
The second corporation I would like to mention is Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada has had many significant achievements in the energy sector since it became a Crown corporation. I do not want to talk about the obvious difficulties it has experienced with respect to gas stations or about its acquisi-

May 22, 1984
Financial Administration Act
tion, but about the purchasing power of the federal Government.
It is clear that there is an expansion and almost an explosion of activities in terms of purchasing power at the federal Government level. People on the streets of Canada today want access to the purchases made by the Government. For instance, all federal Government employees have a Petro-Canada credit card. This means that federal Government employees who have that Petro-Canada card do not use other gas stations. The Government is using its economic force to support a Crown corporation to the disadvantage of a whole section of Canadian private enterprise represented by other gas station owners. We are not only talking about oil companies but individual gas station owners. It is another example of how a Crown corporation can have a direct impact on the livelihood and opportunities of other Canadians.
The Farm Credit Corporation involves a unique situation. Obviously, the Farm Credit Corporation, which may provide up to 47 per cent of the long-term lending in agriculture in 1985, is an institution which has served a very important role in the Canadian agricultural economy. Currently, its interest rates are approximately 14.625 per cent to 15 per cent, depending on the length of the mortgage. The point I am making is not that there is a problem with the Farm Credit Corporation in itself or that the institution should not exist, but that there should be some responsibilities on the part of the Minister if the institution is offering to lend money at that rate. That responsibility does not seem to exist now.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is saying during the leadership campaign that there should be a cap of 12 per cent on interest rates. I do not disagree with him on that. I think the cap should be a hell of a lot lower than that. The Minister is saying that and he is supposed to be responsible for the Farm Credit Corporation, but he is hiding behind some kind of nebulous legislative difficulty in terms of not taking responsibility for what the agricultural lending rates really are. If you stop to think about it, Mr. Speaker, there is a gap in the accountability, the control, or something. It is either that or someone is not telling the truth.
Fourth is AECL. It has been very clear for a number of years that AECL is a Crown corporation that has had major problems. Initially AECL was asked to do something for which it was never designed: AECL was asked to market the Candu reactor. Apart from the very obvious difficulties we really have no sales right now that are doing us any good. There are two sales in process: one in Rumania and there is one potential sale in Turkey. The bottom line of these sales has yet to be seen. These sales will probably create more problems than they will solve. Quite simply, we do not need Rumanian tractors and shoes nor do we need a lot of the things which the contratrade agreements will give us. On the other hand, if we do end up selling a reactor to Turkey, it means we have lost the control of our technology, and I do not know where that
leaves the future for all of the Candu industries that depend on sales of reactors.
AECL has had a lot of difficulties. It was directed to do something for which it was not necessarily organized or intended. AECL has terrific credibility. It has many good people who can do things technically, who can do and did do the research and development on the Candu system. We have known for several years, if not longer, that the Candu system is not at this stage being developed throughout the world in a way which means giving continued solid employment opportunities for engineers and others who are working at AECL. We have not had or been given any other direction to AECL. There has been no sensitivity to what opportunities might exist for AECL or in some way to divert the excellence in engineering expertise into something that would be productive for Canada.
I see you are indicating that I have perhaps two minutes left, Mr. Speaker.
There were several other examples, Canada Post being one of them, that I would like to have touched upon. Canada Post intends to use its offices for a merchandising option involving another private enterprise which would disadvantage other similar private enterprises throughout Canada.
All of these are examples which show us the impact that Crown corporations are having in business activities throughout Canada and on our lives. It is a growing problem. It is a problem without adequate control. It does not have by anyone's standards adequate accountability. There is not the direct responsibility needed to hold Crown corporations to political accountability when we get into the upcoming election campaign. We want a Bill to accomplish that, but we do not have embodied in this Bill adequate controls to establish that responsibility.
In addition to that we have a time limitation on our debate. At the very least I would ask the Government, as this Bill goes from the Flouse under the limitation of debate motion, to allow an adequate opportunity in committee for interested public parties to participate so as to make sure their views are known, and so that additions and deletions can be made appropriately.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, it is just before the luncheon break but I did want to participate because I have such an interested group on the Government side who I am sure will listen with some interest to my speech. I hope Members on the other side will accept the advice that I give them because my remarks and advice are meant in the interests of making this place work.
I know we are not allowed to comment on the absence or presence of Members in the House itself, but I think it is appropriate for us to mention that on this last day of debate on second reading of Bill C-24, an Act which deals with Crown corporations, it is significant that not one Member of the Government has had the courage to stand in his or her place to defend the invocation of closure on a Bill of such importance and significance to the people of Canada. Members of the Government have been timorous. They sit in their seats. They
May 22, 1984

have not participated in this debate at all because there is no answer to the allegation made against the Government. The Government has used ham-handed and unnecessary devices to thwart free and democratic debate on the floor of the House of Commons.
Why is it that the Liberals are not prepared to defend the action taken on this debate, Mr. Speaker? They know there is no answer to the millions of Canadians who wonder how it can happen that two corporations wasted $5 billion of taxpayers' money. Canadair and de Havilland, between the two of them, have caused the taxpayers to lose $5 billion. People want to know why Members of Parliament are not debating the issue of Crown corporation accountability. It is a serious and important current issue which should be debated on the floor of the House of Commons. The Liberals, while they are in the process of a leadership review, do not want the people of Canada reminded that where Crown corporations are concerned the Government has been derelict in its duty. They do not want Canadians to know that the proposals the Government is bringing forward will not solve the underlying problems we have in terms of accountability. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker. It is not a question that somehow the Government wants the business of the House to go on. Liberals are afraid politically to have this matter debated publicly. Liberals do not want us to deal with Crown corporations seriatim, saying: "Here are the problems that have arisen; here is the amount of money that has been lost to the Canadian taxpayer . The Liberals do not want to hear alternatives or suggestions from the Opposition. We have made real and substantive proposals with respect to improvement of the accountability of Crown corporations.
I simply want to tell you what this Bill is all about, Mr. Speaker. One section tells it all. The Liberals say this Bill deals with the whole concept of accountability. Let me tell you how far that accountability goes. In this legislation there is provision to prevent Members of Parliament from investigating and looking at reports on the activities of Crown corporations.
Let us take a look at Clause 2.2(3) of Bill C-24 proposed by this Government. It reads:
If a committee of a House of Parliament-
Whatever that is.
to which an order is referred pursuant to subsection (2) produces a report on the order, no motion for concurrence in the report may be moved in that House.
That is contrary to basic and fundamental principles of democracy. The Liberals are intruding on the procedures of this House of Commons which would allow Members to debate reports coming from committee stage. This is unprecedented. It is unheard of. This has never been proposed in legislation in this country before. We have the Government invoking its own form of gag of Members of the House of Commons by legislation. The Government wants us to pass this Bill on the nod without further discussion.
I will be back after lunch, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish there were more government Members present, but in any event it is with national pride that I salute the new Stanley Cup champions, the Edmonton Oilers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am sure that I speak for all Members of the House, as well as for all citizens of Canada, particularly Albertans and especially Edmontonians.
The Oilers, displaying a new breed of hockey stars-some would say superstars-and playing their own brand of fast, high-scoring hockey, won the National Hockey League schedule going away. In the finals the Oilers dethroned one of the great teams of professional hockey, the four-time consecutive Stanley Cup winners, the New York Islanders.
All of Canada won in this series. Players from all parts of Canada participated. Indeed, I doubt if any province of Canada was not well represented by players on both teams. We also saw several new stars from Finland, Sweden, Czechoslovakia and the United States add to a changing game.
In Edmonton they talk of dynasties. We all remember the Edmonton Eskimos, five-time Grey Cup champions who yielded that throne only last year. Now come the Oilers. For how many years? Five at least! I go back further to the years before 1946 when the Edmonton Commercial Grads reigned as undisputed world basketball champions for almost 25 years, including three Olympic titles.
On a personal note, Mr. Speaker, when I assumed your chair in 1962, Mark Messier, winner of the Conn Smythe Trophy, was the youngest little fellow in the family next door.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his allotted time has expired.
3916_____________________________________COMMONS



MEDICAL CARE


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, at a time when there is a surplus of university and community college graduates in various professions seeking employment, there is an acute and alarming shortage in one essential profession in the paramedical field, that is physiotherapy. The physiotherapist is one of the well-trained professionals who play a key role in rehabilitation. With good background training in understanding medicine, surgery and obstetrics, and working with the appropriate doctor, physiotherapists apply physical exercises and various physical aids particularly tailored for the individual in facilitating rapid recovery in the rehabilitation of the injured, sick, and diseased. Unfortunately a number of them have elected to work in physical fitness institutions, where I believe their skill is underutilized.
I am concerned that those in post-secondary education are slow in assessing the genuine need for the services of graduates in the field of medical rehabilitation and that they are making little effort to meet this need, especially when there is such a large group, numbering in the thousands, of well motivated, qualified students ready and waiting for appropriate training.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions in the past Hon. Members of the House of Commons have voiced our concern about the plight of Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov. We have urged the Government of the Soviet Union to relent in its continuing persecution of Mr. Sakharov and his wife, Yelena Bonner. Their situation is now critical.
Andrei Sakharov, who has been banished to internal exile, is on a prolonged hunger strike in a desperate attempt to force Soviet officials to issue an exit visa for his wife so that she may travel abroad to obtain medical treatment unavailable to her in the Soviet Union.
As seldom before, the international community has rallied to condemn the harsh treatment being accorded these two human rights activists whose lives are now in danger. Members of Congress, Parliaments, Foreign Ministers and Heads of Governments are joining in the plea to free the Sakharovs. It is critical that the Government of Canada protest officially this ongoing violation of the Helsinki Final Act and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the Soviet Union, and that we further call upon the Government of that country to release the Sakharovs and allow them to emigrate to the country of their choice.
DEBATES _______________________________ May 22, 1984



PORNOGRAPHY


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, recent initiatives in the United States to fight pornography are welcome here, first because any crackdown on pornography in the United States will be a crackdown here since the United States is the chief source of our pornography. Second, the initiatives are laudable because they go to the heart of the matter. Increasing fines to $100,000 possible maximum for a first offence and $200,000 for a subsequent offence will really help to take the profits out of this industry, and industry is what pornography is all about.
In Canada, by comparison, the fines are at a level of paltry hundreds of dollars in recent cases. We will never deal with pornography seriously until we have substantial fines and other monetary penalties such as loss of licence. Further, the American initiative is laudable for dealing with enforcement. Federal and state authorities are getting together to seek faster methods of getting offenders into court. That is not happening in Canada. We have two committees and one subcommittee dealing with the matter.
There are matters with which Parliament could deal, such as passing amendments to the Broadcasting Act and swift passage of amendments to the obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code. We should prepare for action when the Badgley Committee and the Fraser Committee report so that the provinces can swing into action as soon as we have those recommendations so that we will have serious enforcement against pornography.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, one of the winning essays used to choose Ontario youth delegates to the Liberal convention has come to our attention, and I want to share it with the House. It reads:
My parents, staunch Liberals, want me to be a delegate.
They say there will be many Liberal leadership conventions over the next few years but this will be the last opportunity, in my lifetime, to see a Liberal Prime Minister in person.
I support all of John Turner's positions on bilingualism.
His clarifications have been helpful, especially if I don't like his first position on an issue. His support for Bill 101 was courageous, while he was in Quebec.
I saw one of his investment films, once. I was lucky; I saw it on opening night. My friends went the next day and "Gone with the Wind" was playing instead.
My father works for Canadian Pacific, just like Mr. Turner and Senator "6 & 5".
Please thank Mr. Turner for setting up this independent essay contest to select youth delegates. This is democracy.
I was concerned when Mr. Apps and Mrs. Campagnolo threatened to clean up the Liberal Party. Now that you have fixed my delegate position, I know things haven't changed.
May 22, 1984

It is signed:
"Yours truly, James Coutts".



BAN SOUGHT ON ALUMINUM FOOD AND BEVERAGE CONTAINERS

Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most insidious killers of the elderly in Canada and elsewhere in the world is the degenerative Alzheimer's disease which attacks that part of the brain needed for memory and reason. In Canada there are more than 300,000 persons with this disease, the fourth ranked cause of death among seniors.
Alzheimer's disease is a sclerosis or hardening of the blood vessels leading to the brain. This prevents the flow of a sufficient amount of oxygen to the brain. One of the findings of an ongoing research program on Alzheimer's disease is the presence of high aluminum levels in the brains of those affected.
One common source of aluminum is found in aluminum food containers, aluminum cooking pots, and aluminum utensils. As this disease may take up to 20 years to develop, Mr. Speaker, one must give serious consideration to the use of aluminum in those areas as it could in fact be a causative agent in bringing on Alzheimer's disease.
Recent media reports in Ontario indicate that the go-ahead has been given to beverage and soft drink manufacturers for beverage containers made of aluminum to replace the traditional containers made of tin. I believe that this is a serious mistake and one that should be rectified. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I call upon the Government and the Department of National Health and Welfare to take action to stop the use of aluminum in the manufacture of food and beverage containers, food utensils, and cooking pots. Such action would drastically reduce the chances of developing this dreadful disease which is debilitating to so many Canadians.



DISARMAMENT


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, the women of Greenham Common, England, are to be congratulated. Their two and a half year vigil against the Cruise missile has greatly contributed to public awareness. They, as well as hundreds of thousands of men, women and children have created a peace movement that Governments and politicians cannot ignore.
In Canada every poll indicates that the arms race is a major issue. People everywhere are protesting against the insanity of both sides. For example, Mr. Speaker, if a Hiroshima-sized atomic bomb had been exploded on a city every day since the first one exploded some 39 years ago, we would only have used
up approximately 1 per cent of our explosive power. What insanity! However, it continues.
The world will be spending close a trillion dollars on arms. No wonder we have high interest rates and dozens of countries are facing bankruptcy. Like a black hole, the arms race is sucking in scare-capital while pushing the world toward nuclear extinction.
Canada continues to contribute to the insanity. Despite the recent and welcome efforts of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), we continue to help develop and produce new instruments of mass destruction. We continue to test the Cruise missile and sign secret agreements to test other weapons systems.
What is our greatest hope for ending the insanity? It is the people, Mr. Speaker. It is ordinary men and women overcoming red-baiting, despair, cynicism, and their sense of hopelessness, to march in the streets, to sign petitions, and to let their Governments and politicians know that this madness must be stopped before it destroys us all.


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



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, on March 17 the Hon. Member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) told the International Conference on Latin America that the Canadian Government, in its dealings with Nicaragua, is not "mesmerized by the bogy of a 'communist menace' supposedly knocking at our back door". The Hon. Member should take note of the observations of John Fryer, the socialist President of the National Union of Provincial Government Employees, who has just returned from Nicaragua. Mr. Fryer was there to attend a peace conference sponsored by the World Federation of Trade Unions, an organization made up mainly of union bodies with communist orientation.
A Sandinista government official told Mr. Fryer that "we are Marxist-Leninists and our aim is to create a Marxist-Leni-nist society". Mr. Fryer pointed out that Cuban influence is pervasive. He said that the Sandinistas are close to becoming a left-wing dictatorship with little interest in creating a pluralistic society. Although he himself is a socialist, he had to obtain permission from the Cubans to visit the dock area. Are the Cubans communists? Do fish swim?
Non-government unions are outlawed and harassed in Nicaragua in the same way as Solidarity is treated in Poland. Mr. Fryer recommends that Canadian labour should initiate aid projects to democratic unions. Even he is learning. I would suggest that Canadian government aid could be given on the same basis. I urge the Government to review its policy of extending aid to dictatorships that have no interest in human rights and democracy, and to draw that to the attention of the Hon. Member for Labelle.

May 22, 1984
Oral Questions THE STANLEY CUP



CONGRATULATIONS EXPRESSED TO CHAMPION EDMONTON OILERS

Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, starting at 5 p.m. there will be a grand parade in Edmonton today, and it will be in the very heart of my constituency. Also at 5 p.m. five Long Island ducks will be presented to the mayor at City Hall.
What is being celebrated is the advent of "Oiler" mania, the recognition that in a mere five years the Grand City of Edmonton has proven to all of North America that it is indeed the hockey capital of the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: Those beloved "Oilers" in Edmonton, led by a lad named Gretzky, a coach named Sather, and an owner named Pocklington, and boosted and supported by half of the population of northern Alberta, proved that they are true champions. They made those "Islanders" eat crow rather than good Alberta beef. Every one of those great "Oiler" players is to be congratulated on their great victory.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all Members of the House were pleased to hear the news regarding the five-nation peace initiative. My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to ascertain if the Prime Minister was personally consulted on the formation of the five-nation peace initiative announced today and, if so, could he advise the House as to his views in regard to the success and the timeliness of such an initiative?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have been in consultation with the Parliamentarians for World Order who are to be commended for having initiated this and for having approached various leaders, including myself, to see if we could come up with a common statement. I very much approved of the initiative in that, in September and October of last fall, I myself was suggesting that political leaders everywhere should follow up on their responsibilities and take a position on the subject of world peace. I suggested that all leaders should press forward as these particular leaders have done, to awaken the consciousness of political leaders everywhere to the need for putting pressure not only on the two superpowers but also on the five nuclear powers, as I myself did for much of last fall and early winter.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has indicated that he was consulted, and I am delighted to hear that. May I ask the Prime Minister if he was invited on behalf of the Government to be a signatory to the agreement, inasmuch as the main thrust of what we read this morning appears to coincide with some of the ideas that he was articulating? If he was invited to be a signatory, what was his response and the response of the Government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, at some stage I think it was expected or hoped that I would be a signatory. However, in discussing and looking at the text, it should be obvious to the Leader of the Opposition that neither I, as the Leader of the Canadian Government, nor he, as the Leader of the Opposition, could subscribe to some of the requests contained within that statement.
Obviously, I am very much in agreement with the over-all thrust and intention of the statement, and so is the Government. However, dealing with some of its specifics, I am quite sure that unless the Leader of the Official Opposition is successful in persuading President Reagan, as the main force in NATO, to change some of his policies, it would be difficult to subscribe to it. The Leader of the Opposition will be seeing President Reagan and if he can get him to accept some of these propositions, maybe all Parties in the House could proceed to come closer to accepting some of the positions in the statement.


REQUEST FOR PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION TO PARLIAMENT
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, consistent with the Prime Minister's articulated apprehensions regarding specific elements of the resolution, with which we are not in disagreement, has he given some thought to the wording of a resolution he could present to this House, which all Parties could support, and which would endorse the thrust of such an initiative without necessarily endorsing each and every aspect? I think I mentioned in one of my earlier interventions that the strength of such an initiative would be the all-Party endorsement of it. I know that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition would be delighted to look at any documents the Prime Minister chose to bring forward which would enhance the support for any initiative which endeavours to build a more durable peace.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Hon. Leader of the Opposition realizes that he is perhaps a little less than completely clear when he comments on the resolution that the Parliamentarians for World Order caused to be produced. I say that he could not subscribe to it in its present form, and he nodds his head in assent.
As to the question of a resolution of this House, Mr. Speaker, he will know, and it is well known publicly, that there has been a great deal of negotiation between the Leader of the
May 22, 1984

Opposition, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and myself, on the possibility of putting such a resolution before the House. He knows that his Party and mine agreed on such a resolution, but the idea of unanimity of this House behind such a resolution was certainly scorched when the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who I see is not in his seat-I know we will all be happy to hear his comments on it-tabled his own requirements for supporting that resolution, and those requirements contained some of the elements which would prevent the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party from subscribing not only to the Parliamentarians for World Order resolution but any resolution which, for instance, went squarely against the two-track decision of NATO at this time.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. He will have noted that Stats-Can revealed on Friday that average family income in Canada declined 2 per cent in real terms in 1982 as compared to 1981. That is the first time since the survey began that real family income in Canada declined for two consecutive years.
The Minister may have noted that the average income of female single parent families, the most needy, was down 7 per cent from 1981 in real terms.
In view of this battering of Canadians, which continued in 1983, and which certainly impedes any recovery, would the Minister advise the House whether the Government will postpone or eliminate the 1 per cent increase in the sales tax planned for October 1 ? The sales tax is the most regressive of all federal taxes. Will the Government do away with that increase, and also with the changes in income tax which will result in $7.6 billion of income being taken from Canadians in the next three years? Are Canadians not being crucified enough with these losses in real income?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, all elements in our society have shared in the restrictions and restraints which have marked the recent economic recession and period of recovery. Family income is no exception. We have seen a rapid drop in inflation in Canada, which is reflected in the statistics which the Hon. Member has cited. What we have also seen is a reduction in the growth in wage increases in Canada. For example, in the fourth quarter of 1983 over 1982 there was an increase of 0.4 per cent, a minimal increase in real wages during that period. What does that mean? It means that Canada has become more productive. We are better able to compete internationally. That in turn is reflected in our record export performance over the past year and a half. We are seeing it happen. Inflation is
Oral Questions
coming down, Canada is becoming more productive, business is going forward, and jobs are being created.
The Hon. Member opposite also wants to bear in mind that we have seen that consumer demand has led recovery and contributed to a great improvement in the balance sheets of Canadian corporations. Investment will follow that improvement as the profitability of corporations increases. I think the Member opposite is wrong to take his normal gloom and doom attitude. In fact the situation in Canada today is very promising.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Minister is saying that it is a good thing that real incomes of Canadian families have dropped, it is a good thing that the income of female single parent families went down 7 per cent, and that average wages declined last year. This is a good thing and he welcomes it!


PLIGHT OF PEOPLE BELOW POVERTY LINE
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Budget forecast that this year real wages will increase 0.0 per cent. In 1982, 3.9 million Canadians lived below the poverty line, an increase of 400,000. Is it the Government's philosophy that the increase in those who live below the poverty line is a good thing because it makes Canadians more competitive? Or will the Government consider those 400,000, and the other millions whose real incomes have gone down, and eliminate the sales tax increase in October and the income tax increases which are going to harm them even more?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite must know that it is our intention, in answer to his specific question, to proceed with the increase in the sales tax. He knows perfectly well that when we announced that increase in the April, 1983, Budget we did so in full expectation that economic recovery would be under way and that the taxpayer would now be able to sustain that slight increase. We did so because the Government of Canada needs the revenue. If the Government is to maintain its policies of support for those who can least afford a recession in Canada, for those provinces in need of transfer payments, the Government must raise the necessary revenue.
Now that the economic recovery is going forward, we are satisfied that the impact of 1 percentage point increase in the sales tax will not have the deleterious effects the Hon. Member opposite imagines. On the contrary, the evidence is everywhere at hand that the economy is able to sustain that slight increase in taxation and that there will be no harmful effects of the sort that the Hon. Member so often imagines in his dark thoughts.
3920

May 22, 1984
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


FIVE-NATION PEACE INITIATIVE-ROLE OF GREECE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, and is a supplement to that of the Leader of the Opposition. It concerns the new peace proposal announced simultaneously by countries such as Greece, Sweden, India, Mexico, and Tanzania. The Prime Minister, is saying that he was not part of this, referred to our NATO commitments. I would like to remind him that one of the signatories to this initiative is Greece, a NATO country. The Prime Minister just recently said in a speech that NATO is a democracy and we have the right to disagree with some of the over-all initiatives. I would like to ask him why he did not consider joining with Greece in a more dramatic attempt to try to break the log-jam and seek disarmament in the world.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will remember that Prime Minister Papan-dreou had proposed a six-month freeze on the two-track decision. This was rejected unanimously by all the other NATO members. I think it is certainly within the right of the Prime Minister of Greece, and of his Government, still to hold the belief that somehow the freeze of the deployment would have been a solution to the deployment of the SS-20s by the Soviets. However, this was not my opinion, and it was not the opinion of the other leaders of NATO who spoke on the subject.
I am not here to judge the position of the Prime Minister of Greece, who is an eminent leader and one whom I personally respect. However, I am here to state the position of the Canadian Government that, having adhered to the NATO decision in December, 1979-and I remind the House that it was a decision taken by the then Tory Government-it is a decision which our Government has decided to accept and support. That is the position. Therefore, we cannot have the latitude of the Prime Minister of Greece and still be faithful allies of NATO.


ARMS RACE EXPENDITURES-SUGGESTED TRANSFER OF RESOURCES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. I am sure he has seen the four or five page initiative by the five countries. I wonder if he can tell the House whether or not he is willing to accept some of these points and add them to his own peace proposals, such as point 4 which talks about the transferring of resources from the arms race into economic and social developments, as well as the halting of all testing production and deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. Is he willing to add some of these points to his own initiative?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the first point, Mr. Speaker, about transferring resources to the Third
World, that is a point which I urged very strongly on the leaders of the Third World themselves when we convened in New Delhi last November. It is a general idea which I have also supported at the United Nations. Therefore, I have no difficulty in adding that to any House resolution.
It is a little bit extraneous to the direct question of getting the two superpowers together but it is not something to which I would object. However, when the Hon. Member goes on to ask whether I would be prepared to support and include in a resolution the idea of a freeze of deployment, he himself should realize that at the present stage of the game that is contrary to the two-track decision. I must remind the Hon. Member that the Soviets certainly were not freezing deployment when, between 1977, more or less, and the present time, they continued deploying SS-20s.


CRUISE MISSILE TESTING
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My final supplementary question on the Prime Minister's NATO ploy is this. Since Greece was part of the initiative, and since Denmark has said no to deployment in that country, and apparently Holland is now delaying a decision to deploy the missile there, I wonder whether or not the Prime Minister might reconsider the go ahead he has given to the Americans on the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada and finally say no to the United States, in a dramatic effort to try to break that nuclear log jam?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, saying no to the United States is relatively easy. What is more difficult, to my mind, is to say no to the spirit of the two-track decision which is something which we adhered to, it is something which we hoped would lead to creative discussions between the two super powers, and which we hoped would result in a limitation of the nuclear arms race and eventual de-escalation. It did not work out that way, Mr. Speaker, and no country regrets it more than Canada. However, I am not prepared, nor is the Hon. Member's Party prepared, as I understand it, at this time, to say no to NATO. That is the question he should be asking himself.


STATISTICS CANADA
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services who is responsible for Statistics Canada. A survey which is presently being undertaken by Statistics Canada into the debts and assets of some 15,000 households across Canada is being protested by the Consumers' Association of Canada, and by others, as a gross invasion of privacy. Would the Minister tell the House what possible reason the Government has to want to know how much money a family has in the bank, what amount of cash it has on hand in the home, what
May 22, 1984

outstanding charges it has against credit cards, and what loans it has with various chartered banks or other financial institutions? More important, Mr. Speaker, who is going to have access to this information?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the answer seems obvious, and I am surprised it did not occur to the Hon. Member, considering her experience. The reason a survey is being made of the debts and assets of a sample of Canadian households across Canada is that the data thus obtained will help us to make projections on the investment capacity of Canadians as private citizens and the repercussions that will have on the economy in general. It also helps us to gauge the debt levels or savings levels of Canadians, and I think this information is also very important to people in the private sector. However, the Hon. Member ought to know that at Statistics Canada, confidentiality is the rule. Any survey of this kind is a so-called selective survey whose results are tabulated generically, and no one and no provincial or federal departments have access to the individual data provided on the questionnaires. Only generic data are available and these are released for use by the public in the private sector, or for use by federal, provincial or municipal governments.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Minister mentions confidentiality with regard to Statistics Canada. We have already seen how confidentiality can be broken as in the case, for instance, of the Minister of Finance, who used rather questionable tactics when he used personal data in another time and circumstance, personal data which were available to him.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Epp:: Right on.


CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITIZENS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: In this case I would like to ask the Minister, since lawyers, individuals, and a number of concerned Canadians have said that they feel that individuals who give that information are going to be able to be identified by their addresses and their birth dates, what assurance has any Canadian in the face of what has happened in the past, and in the face of the abuses by Revenue Canada, that this information will really be treated in a confidential way.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what has got into the Hon. Member this afternoon, because at Statistics Canada, confidentiality has always been the rule for all its surveys, including the Census and specific surveys like this one. I could show the Hon. Member hundreds of requests for information which I receive under the Access to Information Act and prove to her
Oral Questions
how serious we are about the confidential aspect of data we collect from Canadians.
I must say that I am very keen on the confidentiality aspect, Mr. Speaker, because if there are individual citizens or groups of citizens, as the Hon. Member seems to be inferring, who are concerned about this survey and who believe it is possible to breach confidentiality through a postal code or address or whatever the Hon. Member seems to have said, I am willing to sit down with her and listen to these individuals or groups to try and take corrective action if necessary. However, I think this is just another tempest in a teapot being served up by the other side of the House.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that six inmates escaped from the Springhill medium security institution on Sunday, including one inmate who was serving a sentence for murder, and the fact that only one officer who carried the keys to the compound stood between those inmates and freedom, is the Minister giving consideration to initiating a public inquiry which will allow the general public an understanding of what is happening to security in penitentiaries? This does not just affect Springhill, but it certainly affects Springhill at this moment in time.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to begin my answer by informing the House that two of the six inmates who escaped over the weekend have been apprehended, including the individual with the heavy sentence for the serious offence to which the Hon. Member referred. The Inspector General was sent to Nova Scotia during the weekend to conduct an investigation into what happened. That investigation may well be satisfactory. I would be glad to share its results, in so far as I can, subject to security considerations with Members of the House when I receive them to see whether any type of public inquiry is necessary for any reason.
I will remind the Hon. Member that I am appearing before the Justice Committee on Estimates today. I would be very glad to discuss the security measures at Springhill and all S-4 institutions which, in my view, are adequate.


SERIES OF INCIDENTS
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, as of this moment, as far as I know, no photographs of the four escapees who are still at large have been released to the media. Therefore there is no way for the general public to

May 22, 1984
Oral Questions
have an understanding of where those inmates are or who they are. We have seen a series of major blunders endangering the general public. With these facts in mind, I ask the Minister to reconsider an in-house inquiry which really does nothing for the general public as far as letting them know whether they are being adequately protected against these inmates. One of the escaped inmates attempted to escape only two weeks ago from the same institution. At that time he was in a compound from which he escaped this time because of his failed escape attempt two weeks ago.
If the Minister wishes to have any credibility with the general public in the areas where those penitentiaries are located, he had better call a public inquiry quickly so that the general public will believe that there is some protection available.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be better to have the results of the Inspector General's investigation before deciding whether any more general public inquiry is necessary. It might be worth reminding Members of the House that, after a long, cold, Canadian winter, statistics which show escapes from penetenti-aries rise every year at this time. That is not in any way to defend or condone them. However, I think it might be reassuring to the House to know that the number of escapes which have occurred this year is lower than the average of the last three or four years. I will have a more precise figure for Hon. Members. A certain proportion of escapes occurs in spite of the very best efforts of the Correctional Service of Canada.
I am also glad to remind Members that in this case over the weekend the police departments of all municipalities with which these six escaped inmates had ever been associated were warned about the escape. I know that photographs of the individuals who escaped are available in police records.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Less bars, more sunlamps.


Mr. McDermid:: That is reassuring.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It concerns The Globe and Mail, which calls itself Canada's national paper. On April 27, 1984, The Globe and Mail ordered its distributor in Winnipeg to stop distributing The Globe and Mail to communities in the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River, particularly the communities of Sioux Lookout and Red Lake. They cut it off, not because people were unwilling to pay the price of 85 cents a paper, but because the many advertisements the paper carries had no relevance in Kenora-Rainy River.
I would like the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to take under advisement the possibility of a prosecution of The Globe and Mail for having ordered its distributor not to distribute its paper in a way which is common throughout the rest of the country, which order is totally discriminatory against communities in my constituency and other small communities throughout Canada.
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the gravity of the situation, though many would not, coming from that part of the country where communities are remote and are not served by newspapers. This is a very important source of information. I can guarantee the Member that I will certainly look into the matter.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In our present depressed economy, more and more Canadians have to depend on government job creation projects which pay very minimal wages. In addition to being paid low wages, workers on these projects often find that they are required to do heavy and dangerous work. They lack any adequate provision for raising safety concerns or for resolving grievances.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Douglas Manly: The Conservatives might think this is funny, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is very important. Would the Minister make changes to Canada Works regulations so that all projects employing five or more workers would be required to have joint management-worker safety committees, and also some process for handling grievances?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Douglas Manly: Something better than workers going to the boss with cap in hand is required.


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is quite correct. This is a very serious question. I am appalled at the lighthearted reaction of the Conservative Members. I would like to assure the hon. gentleman that I will look into his recommendation very seriously. I cannot give him an absolute commitment at this point.


John Horton McDermid: You two-faced fibber.


John Carnell Crosbie: You will be on one of those projects next week.
May 22, 1984


WORKING CONDITIONS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the Minister's present knowledge could he indicate to the House what protection Canada Works employees have against unsafe working conditions or unjust dismissal? For example, are project officers required to take safety conditions into account before approving applications? Do they police these conditions after applications have been approved? If workers are fired because of a dispute with an employer over safety conditions, can we be assured that they will not be discriminated against for future employment on other Canada Works projects?


John Horton McDermid: You better produce, Roberts.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has posed a variety of questions. I will look into those and give him a full and complete report as to what the criteria are and what standards are applied.


John Carnell Crosbie: You look into it.


PORNOGRAPHY
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice my question is for the Solicitor General. Yesterday the United States passed into law some measures to deal with child pornography. Has the Minister received a copy of that legislation? Is the Government proposing any kind of parallel legislation in Canada which would deal with the child pornography issue in a similar way? How soon could we expect that kind of legislation, rather than having a commission travelling across the country to hear accounts that we already know are true?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will recall that my colleague, the Minister of Justice, did introduce very strong anti-child pornography legislation into the House. It was considered by the Justice Committee of the House and did not pass. There were a number of objections to it by a number of Members. I would remind him that there are at least two commissions under way now. One is a parliamentary committee which is examining the subject. One is the report of the Badgley Commission which is expected any time now. Third, there was a commission established by the Government to look into pornography and prostitution to recommend legislation or other measures to the House which may have a broader base of support than the child pornography legislation which was brought forward to the Justice Committee which I referred to a moment ago.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer my question.
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT PLANS


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, is the Government planning any kind of parallel moves which would track the U.S. experience and put on our Order Paper legislation which would deal with child pornography in a similar way? Estimates are that 80 per cent of child pornography material is produced in the United States. If that legislation is successful there could well be a greater flow of that material into Canada and a greater establishment of that industry in Canada. Does the Government have any immediate plan of action to deal with that, rather than any further studies?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would be rather more inclined to agree with the Member for Broadview-Greenwood who, at two o'clock today, suggested that effective measures in the United States would be beneficial in Canada rather than being detrimental in Canada.
In any event, we do have copies of the American legislation received in the Ministry of the Solicitor General as well as in the offices of the Minister of Justice. I have not seen it yet myself. I do not think that we ought to bring legislation forward while the committees that I have described is hard at work, but I have said enough to indicate that it is a high priority of the Government and a high priority of this House, as shown by the work of the Justice Committee. When recommendations are made, I can assure him that the Government will give them serious and urgent attention.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. One of his campaign promises in trying to become Prime Minister is to cap interest rates at 12 per cent. In view of the fact that he is fully in charge of the Farm Credit Corporation for which the average rate is now 15 per cent, and in the interest of good faith, would he bring interest rates down to 12 per cent in the Farm Credit Corporation?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of agriculture and in the interest of good faith, which I have a lot of, we will see after June 16.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is supplemen-

May 22, 1984
Oral Questions
tary to the question asked earlier by the Leader of the Opposition, when the Prime Minister expressed some real concern about the relations between the two superpowers.
Given the very dangerous situation that exists in the Persian Gulf, the visit last Friday from a delegation from the Gulf States, and given this dangerous scene between the two superpowers, are we taking a role in cautioning the two superpowers to be very, very careful and not to move in any overt fashion into that very dangerous situation? What is the Government proposing to do?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correctly referring to the Persian Gulf as an example of the state of tension that is dangerous to today's preservation of peace. I believe in previous weeks he and others have talked about Central America. They are certainly two examples of the very dangerous state of relations between the superpowers. That is why I again welcome the initiative of the Parliamentarians for World Order, and support that initiative by very distinguished statesmen on several continents.
The position of the Canadian Government was stated by myself several months ago as regard to the need to reduce tension. We have, of course, made repeated statements about Central America concerning the need not to supply arms from either side to that area.
As regards the Persian Gulf, I do not know if specific representations have been made. At this stage representations would more likely be made to either Iran or Iraq which are at the heart of the war there. I know that my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, did visit the area not many weeks ago to express our concerns, but after the recent events I do not know if there are any repeated expressions of concern by Canada.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The tragic situation of Dr. Sakharov and his wife is well known around the world. Dr. Sakharov has been exiled from Moscow. His wife, who is very ill, had been refused permission to leave the Soviet Union to get the medical attention which she cannot get there. Dr. Sakharov and his wife are now involved in a hunger strike. It is feared by many people that it will end in the death of one or both of them.
Many world leaders, including President Mitterrand of France, have called publicly on the Soviet Union to permit Mrs. Sakharov to leave the Soviet Union for the medical attention she needs. Would the Prime Minister express publicly to the Soviet Union on behalf of the Government, Parliament, and the people of Canada, the wish that they would permit Mrs. Sakharov to leave the Soviet Union?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Government did express its concerns to the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa and pleaded for compassionate treatment in this particular case of Dr. Sakharov and his wife. We have repeatedly pointed out to the Soviet Union that the spirit of the Helsinki Final Act certainly should be conducive to the Soviets treating dissidents in a manner more respectful of human liberties.


PUBLIC APPEAL FOR COMPASSION
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, when the Parliamentary Committee on Soviet Jewry was holding hearings, Professor Cotier of McGill University, who is a leading spokesman on human rights issues, was somewhat critical of the Canadian Government because so much of what we do is in the form of quiet diplomacy. Will the Prime Minister consider making a public appeal directly to the Leader of the Soviet Union, Mr. Chernenko, on this issue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no more public place than the House of Commons. I hereby make a public appeal to President Chernenko to consider compassion in his treatment of Soviet citizens.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona on a short supplementary to a previous question.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services and it is supplementary to the matter raised by the Member for Kingston and the Islands. The Minister will know that a 95-year old widow, a resident of Edmonton, was asked to fill out this Orwellian style survey not long ago. I wrote to him about it. Will he tell the House now whether people who decline to answer these objectionable questions will be prosecuted for doing so?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a few more details about the survey on the distribution of wealth in Canada. The data we have at the present time go back to 1977, and it is clear that if we want to develop economic or social policies for instance, if we want to prepare new income support policies for the aged or for other groups of Canadians who do not have enough money to get by on a day-to-day basis obviously we must have a survey of this kind. In fact, the purpose of this survey is to provide new statistical data, to update the ones we already have and, which go back to 1977, so that the Government can prepare social policies, income distribution policies, policies that will provide a better response to the needs of Canadians.
May 22, 1984


BASIS FOR SURVEY
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same Minister. I hate to repeat the question, but it was quite simple. Do Canadian citizens who refuse to respond to this unconscionable intrusion of their privacy have to contend with the threat of prosecution by the Minister, or is this type of survey being conducted on a voluntary basis?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that a Member of this House should ask me for permission to break the law!


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I will direct my question to the Solicitor General. The Minister will know that Bill C-9, the security Bill, is before committee and that concerns have been expressed regarding provisions in that Bill, specifically the demands for medical records, or information contained in medical records. The Canadian Medical Association just recently repeated its concern about the provisions in Bill C-9. Has he discussed any amendments to those Clauses with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and is he or she proposing any amendments to deal with that difficulty?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have not discussed amendments to that Clause with my colleague, but I have invited members of the committee to propose amendments. I have undertaken to give serious consideration to them.
In the case of access to medical records, I remind the Hon. Member that the McDonald Commission, after having studied national security, recommended that such access should be provided under a warrant procedure. That is precisely what this legislation recommends, implementing the report of the McDonald Commission in that regard. I would also inform the Hon. Member that I gave evidence before the committee the last day of an actual case that was solved by access to the medical records of a Canadian. It occurred during the early 1970s, but I gave details of it to the committee to show that access to the medical records under proper safeguards provided in this legislation-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Once every 20 years. Not bad.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -can be a valuable asset from the point of view of protecting our national security. I know a delicate balance has to be struck between effective national security
Oral Questions
and the protection of privacy and the civil liberties of Canadians. I have indicated that very strong safeguards are provided to ensure this right of access will not be abused but that it will be carefully controlled.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Prime Minister will know that a week ago a Canadian landed immigrant was taken by Vancouver police across the Canada-U.S. border in British Columbia, where he was then picked up by American police for matters which were pending in the United States. Can the Prime Minister indicate in this House what report the Government has on this incident, and to what degree there are communications between the Canadian Government and the United States Government with respect to it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I confess I have not heard of this incident, but I will take the Hon. Member's question as notice and refer it to the Minister.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky) on Friday, May 18, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) that the petition presented by him on Friday, May 18, 1984, does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ESTIMATES


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On Friday the Minister for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) answered a question of mine, and indicated that he would get back with an answer today, as to whether or not the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) would be showing up before a committee. Is the Government prepared to answer that question?

May 22, 1984
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has not raised a point of order. I suggest he raise the question again during Question Period tomorrow.
Mr. Rolland Dion (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister
of State for Science and Technology): (a) Yes, $6,934.15 (b) No.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on behalf of a number of footwear workers in my constituency of Broadview-Greenwood who are concerned with the lapse of quotas which will occur in November if they are not extended. This will result in a loss of a large number of jobs.
Whereby the undersigned petitioners call upon Parliament to extend the footwear quotas and examine the problems facing the footwear industry to allow Canadian industry to become more competitive and thus salvage jobs and create new ones.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of several hundred residents of my constituency. The petitioners, residents of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that there is an urgent need to enact legislation against drinking and driving.
*
* *


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. 781 and 782.


Mr. St. Germain: Since April 1, 1983, did the Ministry of State for Economic and Regional Development spend any amount for (a) electronic media monitoring services performed by private firms or individual contractors (b) print media clipping services performed by private firms or individual contractors and, if so, in each case, what amount?


Mr. St. Germain: Since April 1, 1983, did the Department of Justice spend any amount for (a) electronic media monitoring services performed by private firms or individual contractors (b) print media clipping services performed by private firms or individual contractors and, if so, in each case, what amount?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Yes. (a) Bowdens Information Services, $14,685. (b) Media Day Services, $6,324.


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


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 716 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 716 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed:


Mr. Hovdebo: 1.	In the fiscal year (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83 (c) 1983-84 to date, did the Canadian International Development Agency acquire any (i) milk, powdered, skim, canned or whole (ii) rapeseed or canola products (iii) wheat flour (iv) wheat, barley and oats (v) other cereal (vi) other agricultural products and, if so, in each case, what amount?
2.	For each of the products mentioned in part I (a) who was the supplier (b) what total amount and unit price was paid by the Agency (c) what was the country of origin of each product in each purchase?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 22, 1984



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 now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates; and on the amendment of Mr. Cros-bie (p. 3688).
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I was saying before lunch how reprehensible this tactic of closure is at any time and that we in the Official Opposition feel very strongly when important issues such as accountability of Crown corporations are not debated on the floor of the House of Commons. We have two examples of Crown corporations, Canadair and de Havilland, which have spilled $5 billion of taxpayers' money. This matter is not being addressed fully on the floor of the House of Commons and it is a sorry day for democracy in Canada.
It is not as if we in the Opposition are without specific proposals concerning this legislation. Let me outline them to members of the Government who care to listen. They have not participated in this debate at all. They care not, nor are they able to defend the Government in its imposition of closure. They have been silent seals over there unable to speak because they know they are on the wrong side of this issue.
We have some specific recommendations to make. Our Party called upon a return to a system of effective and individual ministerial responsibility. The legislation before us, Bill C-24, gives authority to be exercised by Cabinet or by Treasury Board. There is no one Minister really responsible. This leads to situations such as Canadair where no Minister will step forward and take the blame for any fiasco that occurs.
My Party believes there should be a classification system for Crown corporations based on the extent of a corporation's reliance on government financing and its role in implementing public policy objectives. We believe there should be stringent measures to restrict new incorporations and the acquisition of Crown corporations and their subsidiaries. We believe that new Crown corporations should be created only by a special Act of Parliament.
The Government has responded that the Government does not need approval for the creation of a Crown corporation if it already has that power under an existing Act of Parliament. Under the Government's proposal, Parliament has no control whatsoever over the creation of subsidiaries to Crown corporations.
Under the provisions of this Bill, a Minister can table a special Bill to create a Crown corporation. Parliamentary review will be limited to 30 days in committee and seven hours
Financial Administration Act
of House debate. We have closure imposed today, Mr. Speaker, but in Bill C-24 we have built-in closure, the shutting down of free and democratic discussion on the floor of the House of Commons.
The Progressive Conservative Party says that there must be clarification of the role of the Auditor General and of his relationship with private sector auditors. Under this Bill Cabinet appoints the auditors for the corporation, not the board of directors.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are signalling that I have two minutes remaining. I have many, many specific proposals that I want to put forward to Government Members so they can see how important issues are being thwarted by this closure motion on the part of the Government. We in the Progressive Conservative Party say that there must be an improved accounting procedure to bring accounting practices for Crown corporations into line with those used in the private sector.
We say there must be a clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the directors of Crown corporations. The Government's response under this legislation makes the board of directors a mere advisory panel. I will give you examples, Mr. Speaker. First, the Cabinet appoints the chief executive officer and the chairman of the board. These are political appointments. Second, in some cases, such as Canada Post and CMHC, the Cabinet can appoint not only the chief executive officer, chairman of the board, but also vice-presidents and other lesser management officials. The Cabinet, of course, appoints the auditor. The board of directors, under this proposal by the Government, are without power. They are simply ripe for political intervention and political patronage, the mainstream of the Liberal Party, which will be brought to an end after the next election. My Party feels that the accountability of Crown corporations is an important issue.
In the two minutes remaining I simply want to say that we resent very much the high-handed manner in which the Government has used the device of closure to close down debate on the floor of the House of Commons. It is a demonstration of its mala fide with respect to a very important issue for the average citizen of Canada as well as for the future well-being of our country.
In conclusion, we can ill afford Crown corporations putting us into a situation of losing more money than the combined budgets of the Provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with my illustrious House Leader, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and indicate the same reaction to this closure motion. Indeed, he indicated that it will affect every aspect of the Bill. In other words, the Government is gagging Parliament and preventing it from having the opportunity to debate in a useful manner some very necessary changes to the over-all system of Crown corporations in the country. Today they employ more people

May 22, 1984
Financial Administration Act
than the Public Service of Canada. They have run up horrendous debts, debts which are well beyond the comprehension of any Canadian businessman. There is no way any business in the private sector, including Dome Petroleum, could comprehend the magnitude of the debt. I am never sure whether or not Dome Petroleum is a Crown corporation. Certainly the way it lost money would indicate that there had been government involvement. It was about as competent in its operations as Canadair and de Havilland.
If Parliament is to have some control over the proliferation of Crown corporations and all other aspects of Crown corporations, such as the chairmen of boards of directors, we require more time to discuss and debate the issue, so that the general public is made aware of the horrendous mistakes of Crown corporations and they are eliminated once and for all. Also we have to assure the general public that there are qualifications other than being a Grit in order to become a director of a Crown corporation. This appears to be the first, last and only prerequisite for most Crown corporations which are in existence at the present time.
We as a nation cannot afford the luxury of Crown corporations being involved in areas where they have proven that they are incompetent, inefficient and costly from the point of view of taxpayers. How can we continue a bail-out proposition which not only results in horrendous deficit situations in Crown corporations but causes the responsible Minister in the other place to indicate that we will be faced with the same situation between now and 1990? The taxpayers of the country are not being given an opportunity to make a judgment on whether or not these companies should be allowed to continue for that period of time, yet they carry the bill. However, that is the situation.
There is every indication that we as a Party will be the government of the country before 1984 has come to an end. Perhaps it would be in our interests as a Party to continue with the rules of the "just society"-that is, just for the Grits-as far as appointments to directorships of Crown corporations are concerned. We are not asking for that. We are asking for more formalized rules now to assure taxpayers that what they have been putting up with will not continue ad infinitum. This is exactly what will happen unless we have a better Bill than the one before us now. In its present form Bill C-24 does not do anything for anyone.
The Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) moved that the Bill be not now read a second time but that it be read six months hence. That amendment is absolutely correct. This Bill may just as well not pass Parliament at all because it does nothing for the taxpayers of the nation. It does not assure them that there will be any additional guarantee of protection of their tax dollars than already exists.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What do they have to hide?


Robert Carman Coates: They are trying to hide the minimal number of Grits left on those boards. They are trying to protect them so that they will have somebody supporting them come the next election. The numbers are becoming less and less. They are
hoping for a cadre, even though it will be a small one, to follow them into the next general election.
If the situation in terms of Crown corporations is not rectified now, it will be different when we become the government of the country. We will impose some responsibility not only upon the big losers but upon Crown corporations which are involved in the business sector and are competing against individual taxpayers. Crown corporations have special incentives available to them. They do not have to make profits. They do not have to pay taxes. They do not have to do what individual free enterprisers have to do, yet they are in competition.
We require a system whereby we could phase out and put to bed many Crown corporations which are really useless money losers and interferers in the private sector, the driving force behind the production of new jobs and opportunities for Canadians. At this moment in time many Canadians have no hope. They have nothing more than LIP or some other programs conceived by the Government which gives only one guarantee to the individuals involved-that they will be part of the UIC syndrome for the rest of their natural lives. That is not good enough for Canadians.
Generally speaking, we require control over Crown corporations. Also we require some rules and regulations which guarantee Canadian taxpayers that there will no longer be the runaway deficit situations that existed in Canadair and de Havilland. Canadair was able to run up a $1.4 billion deficit in one year, and the deficit of de Havilland was half a billion dollars. It looked good in comparison with Canadair but it looked bad in comparison with any other situation in the country. It is very difficult to change the mind of government which has piled up one horrendous billion dollar deficit after another. At this stage in our history it is something like $30 billion and only one Liberal leadership candidate, the gentleman who is not now a Member of the House of Commons, is talking in airy-fairy terms about cutting the deficit by half without being able to give us any idea how that would be achieved. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that if that particular leadership candidate were to look at the Crown corporation situation in the country, he could very easily find a method to halve or even eliminate much of the deficit that the Canadian taxpayers is facing and that all Canadians will be facing in the years ahead. This could be done by putting some business sense back into the Government of Canada. This business sense certainly has not existed in the last decade and I am afraid that it has not existed for almost two decades.
The imposition of closure on this Bill just reinforces the fact that this legislation is not necessary and should not be allowed to be passed by Parliament at this point in time. I support the Hon. Member for St. John's West who proposed the amendment that we are debating now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain).


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker-
May 22, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary on a point of order?


Maurice Brydon Foster: No, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to be recognized.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody.


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that I have been given the privilege of rising in this House to speak against this Bill. Bill C-24, which is a Bill to amend the Financial Administration Act with respect to Crown corporations, is a legislative initiative taken in a subject area that is dominant in the minds of all Canadians and particularly in the minds of those involved in the economic scene.
What is really astonishing is that the Government opposite wants to invoke closure on a debate that is so important that it has ramifications on economic, social and numerous other aspects of the country. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has accused the people on this side of the House of delaying tactics. These are not delaying tactics, Mr. Speaker. We are carrying out our responsibility as we should against bad legislation.
Crown corporations have played a very large role in the economic, social and cultural development of Canada. In fact, in recent years the Liberal Government opposite has allowed the Crown corporation phenomenon to manifest itself into an economic monster that is uncontrolled in spending, is self-reproducing and is lacking any accountability to Parliament or to the people of Canada.
When most Canadians think of Crown corporations, they think of Air Canada, CBC and Petro-Canada. How many Canadians know the real extent of Crown corporation infestation into the private sector of our economy? The Crown corporations disease afflicts our economy like a horrible cancer. The Auditor General compared the proliferation of Crown corporations to an enormous iceberg floating lazily in the foggy Atlantic. I say that these corporations are like Titanics. They should be sinking but they are being propped up at the expense of Canadians.
How many Members opposite actually know how many Crown corporations exist? We have heard estimates of 400 or more, Mr. Speaker. How can it be that we must simply estimate the number of Crown corporations? Where is the control when we as parliamentarians do not even have an accurate count? We cannot get an accurate count, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we oppose Bill C-24 in its present state. The secretive, corrupt Government opposite wants to shroud this figure.
If Canadians really knew the extent of the proliferation of Crown corporations, they would be outraged. More significantly, if Canadians knew the real financial dilemma of the Crown corporation monster, there would be rioting in the streets. The Liberal Government opposite has mortgaged our
Financial Administration Act
nation's future and hidden the debt among the financial confusion-illusion of Crown corporations.
Bill C-24 does nothing to improve the situation. In fact, this Bill simply gives more decision-making power to the Government and more specifically to the Cabinet. This Bill is not as dangerous by what it clearly spells out as it is by what it does not clearly spell out. Every clause of the Bill which deals with substantive powers designates regulation-making authority to Cabinet. The Government does not want Parliament to see the powers that it has. It would rather hide these powers from the people.
In his opening remarks on Bill C-24, the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson) stated:
This Bill gives huge regulation-making powers to the Government. As such, it is typical of this Government's excessive desire for secrecy and unbounded administrative discretion in running the affairs of government, insulated from any parliamentary or public scrutiny and control.
The desire to maintain the secrecy of incompetence is clearly defined by the Minister responsible for the CDIC, an appointment from the other place, the Minister of State for Social Development who denounced the exposure of a further loss by de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited of another $313 million by 1988. This situation is clearly defined in the May 14 issue of Maclean's magazine. Because of this exposure which has made it possible for Canadians to be told what they should know, the Minister is requesting an RCMP investigation into the affair. That is totally disgusting, Mr. Speaker. Here again, he is trying to conceal the real story from Canadians.
This clearly points out the corruption of the Government opposite. It wants to hide its mismanagement. It wants to increase the deficit and does not want to be accountable. It even saw fit to give $155,000 in bonuses to the incompetents who run some of these Crown corporations. The Government is deceiving Canadians today and stealing the future of young Canadians by creating a debt that will take generations to remove.
Government Members are the mismanagers of this century. They speak of technology. Yes, we do want new technology, Mr. Speaker, but at what expense? They are trying to compete in an area in which they are totally outclassed. Let us develop our new technologies in areas we know best, like agriculture and forestry. Let us develop technology where we have the edge and not where we are trailing. We would like to protect jobs, Mr. Speaker, but mismanagement by Government Members along with their inability to cope with the situation will lead to the loss of jobs.
I would like to speak briefly on something about which the Government has not shown that it knows very much, and that is accountability. Accountability is what Bill C-24 is purporting to bring to the Canadian scene. This Bill, however, is a continuation of the horror story of Crown corporation mismanagement. The Auditor General has pointed this out but the Government opposite simply ignores him.
Yes, we are losing credibility on the world scene because of the Government's gross mismanagement. Devalued dollars and

May 22, 1984
Financial Administration Act
high interest rates are all part of the Liberals' disastrous policies and programs. Bill C-24 in its present state is a continuation of those programs.
Under this legislation, the Cabinet will be given the power to appoint the chief executive officers of Crown corporations. Boards of directors will be transformed into some kind of powerless advisory boards. This is simply designed to allow the patronage treadmill, powered by the Liberal Party, to run on. The Liberal Government has used Crown corporations as havens for all of its flacks, hacks and hit-men. Bill C-24 does nothing to control these little piglets who are at the Liberal trough.
In closing, as the newest Member of this House and one who has just come out of the business world and has had to face high interest rates and knows what businesspeople are still facing, I would like to say that this Bill does nothing more than add to the dilemma. We must defeat this Bill at any cost.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the chance to say a few words in the debate this afternoon on Bill C-24. Second reading is usually a time to consider the general principles of a Bill. Prior to today's sitting, the House has spent 23.5 hours on the Bill, which represents approximately six sitting days; perhaps seven days if we count the debate on time allocation. By my count, over 100 speakers from both sides of the House have contributed to the debate. Yet, opposition Members argue that we should spend more and more time on this Bill. It would seem to me that we have gone beyond the stage of second reading and approval in principle. We must get the Bill into committee for detailed study. I hope we will be doing that very shortly, after the vote this afternoon. Surely endless and interminable debate at second reading when amendments cannot be made, with the exception of the amendment which we are debating now, the six-month hoist, is a useless exercise. We need to get into detailed study of this Bill at committee stage.
I heard the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), as well as the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) ask how many Crown corporations are there. They suggested the Government will not reveal this. At this time I would like to point out to the House, and especially to Members opposite, that on May 8 the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) issued a booklet to every Member of Parliament and to the general public entitled, Crown Corporations and Other Canadian Government Corporate Interests. The booklet-and every Member should take the time to read it-reveals the name of each company, the address of its head office, the name of the parent company, or of the Minister through which it reports to Parliament, because some companies are entities which are similar to government departments. The booklet also provides the year in which the company was incorporated, its statutory authority, the fiscal year-end of the corporation, the name of its auditor
and a description of its mandate. If Hon. Members would take the time to read this booklet-


Mr. Mazankowski:: How many are there?


Maurice Brydon Foster: It is issued to every Member, including the Hon. Member opposite.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I have it.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Well, all you have to do is look at page 3 and you will see that there are 67 parent corporations and 127 subsidiaries. As well, there are many mixed and joint ventures. If the Hon. Member who is interjecting took the time to think of large integrated companies such as PetroCan, Air Canada and CN, he would realize that it is much more practical for large commercial enterprises to have subsidiaries to oversee specific projects. PetroCan is involved in dozens and dozens of joint ventures in which there is federal Government investment, but it is often a minority position dealing with exploration and drilling for oil. Hon. Members who are concerned about this issue should carefully read the documents which they have in their offices.
Another issue which has often been raised by the Opposition is the question of the independence and the integrity of cultural corporations such as the CBC, the National Film Board, the Canadian Film Development Corporation and the Canada Council. The Bill clearly spells out that commercial corporations will not be subjected to government directives with regard to their programs, the people they finance or the people whom they assist in the arts. Yet, this is constantly raised as a big issue. When the Bill gets to committee stage, I think these Members should come to the committee, but first they should read the Bill and be sure in their own minds that in fact it does exempt those cultural organizations from directives and regulations.
We should stop and think what the Bill really does. It has been spelled out many times by Members from this side, that clearly it clarifies the role of government, of Parliament, of the Minister responsible for the individual Crown corporation, the role of the board of directors and the general management of Crown corporations. The schedules to the Bill set out a regime for the definition of Crown corporations. Schedule C, Part I, sets out the Crown corporations which require parliamentary appropriations and which are generally not in competition with the marketplace. Schedule C, Part II, sets out Crown corporations such as PetroCan, CN and Air Canada, in which most of the subsidiaries are found. That is logical and it is to be expected. They are not dependent on parliamentary appropriations. So, there is a logical regime for identifying the various classes of Crown corporations.
This Bill gives Parliament the role of authorizing the creation of a directly held Crown corporation-that is a parent Crown corporation-and to change existing mandates. In other words, if an existing Crown corporation wants to change its mandate and do things which are not now authorized by its Act of Parliament, it would have to come back to Parliament to make those changes. As well, Crown corporations which are
May 22, 1984

to be disposed of, will have to be disposed of by an Act of Parliament. The Bill provides for parliamentary control of Crown corporations through appropriations. It provides two regimes for the establishment of Crown corporations. One is through the Canada Business Corporations Act. That Act would not only regulate the establishment of the corporation, but it would bring a resolution before the House which would outline what the powers and the prerogatives of that corporation would be. It provides for 30 days of study in committee and another seven hours of debate in the House. As well, Crown corporations could be established in the future by a special Act of Parliament, as were Petro-Can, Canagrex, and other Crown corporations which have been established in the last three or four years. The Bill gives Parliament direct control over the establishment of new parent Crown corporations.
One of the most important parts of the Bill is that Parliament would have a continuous flow of pertinent information laid before it. If Members opposite had read the Bill they would have realized this. The information would be a summary of the corporate plans, including the operating and capital budgets, annual reports, and directives to Crown corporations, which would be tabled every year. A consolidated report by the President of the Treasury Board outlining the operations of all Crown corporations would also be placed before Parliament. These reports would automatically be referred to the standing committees.
This Bill goes a long way in answering many of the complaints which have in the past been put before the House by the Opposition, by the Auditor General and by others. The President of the Treasury Board and myself, as his Parliamentary Secretary, have made it clear that we are anxious to move on to committee stage. We are anxious to hear recommendations and suggestions to strengthen and make the Bill more effective in controlling Crown corporations. I hope that we will be doing that after the vote later this afternoon.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member who preceded me in debate, and I hoped he would specifically document the number of Crown corporations which have been included in the booklet to which he referred. I believe it is quite apparent that things have got out of control when one looks at that document which was released.
It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, that whenever this Government brings in a piece of legislation which is controversial and inadequate, rather than dealing with those inadequacies and controversies it simply stonewalls, runs for cover and moves closure. There are obviously some defects and major deficiencies in this piece of legislation. I sat in the House last Friday, Mr. Speaker, and you were here when we passed four or five very significant pieces of legislation. They were debated and dealt with at all stages. The fact of the matter is that they were not controversial. This Bill is controversial because it is insufficient to meet the objectives which it purports to meet,
Financial Administration Act
namely, the strengthening of the control and accountability of Crown corporations. This Bill does not meet those objectives. With all the exemptions and regulations which are attached thereto, it is clearly ineffective in fulfilling those objectives.
I believe the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) when he spoke on this piece of legislation called this Bill completely insufficient and irresponsible. He went on to point out that while it covers the main Crown corporations and their subsidiaries, of which there are now 195, the legislation does not cover the 112 Crown corporations which are mixed joint enterprises and their subsidiaries. I repeat, this legislation does not cover 112 mixed enterprises and their subsidiaries. Also, with its regulations and exemptions there are enough loopholes in this legislation to drive a truck through. This Bill will not achieve the desired objectives we all want in this House.
This Bill clearly demonstrates a lack of will and desire on the part of the Government to deal effectively with Crown corporations. It wants this legislation confused. It wants a situation or environment where there can be manipulation and ballyhoo. That is really all part of this Government's whole claim to fame. With the loopholes included in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, I tell you that I cannot see any sizeable improvement in the control and accountability of Crown corporations. It has really missed the boat. I believe the current situation as it relates to Crown corporations in Canada was well outlined in a Globe and Mail article on May 7, 1983, written by Judy Steed, and I quote:
By and large, most of the Crowns are poorly managed, drawing on Government money as if it's a bottomless pit, responsible to ministers who don't know what they're doing, with boards of directors stacked with patronage appointments.
I do not see anything in this Bill which would change my mind about that very accurate assessment of the way things are right now.
The Auditor General has pointed out that the proliferation of Crown corporations, their subsidiaries, the subsidiaries of those subsidiaries, the mixed enterprises and their subsidiaries, is really tantamount to a form of subgovernment with no effective parliamentary control.
In the press release issued by the President of the Treasury Board on March 15, he outlined basically the objectives. The first objective was that Parliament would be required to approve the creation, mandate and financing of a parent Crown corporation. I would like to deal with that, Mr. Speaker, because I believe this Government is not really serious in this regard.
VIA rail was enacted with a stroke of the pen by a $1 item in the Appropriations Act in 1977. Literally everyone in this country has said that VIA rail needs a legislative mandate. It needs a legislative framework. It needs to know what is its mandate. When we engaged in the task force on rail passenger service after the 20 per cent unilateral cutback, we recommended that VIA rail legislation be brought before this House of Commons forthwith. As a matter of fact, I will quote the third recommendation of the Senate which was engaged in a very extensive review of the operations of VIA rail as follows:

May 22, 1984
Financial Administration Act
The Committee recommends that an enactment providing a clear and all encompassing legislative framework for VTA Rail Canada Inc., and in consequence for passenger rail service in this country is an essential requirement.
This has been going on since 1977, yet these recommendations have fallen on deaf ears. The report of the Standing Committee on Transportation which was presented to this House on April 17, 1984, had this to say:
From the point of view of the Committee, it is incomprehensible that seven years have elapsed since VIA came into existence without the Government's taking any legislative action to confer a statutory mandate upon it. The Committee believes that the absence of a mandate has jeopardized the functioning of VIA and this, combined with the financial planning difficulties resulting from Costing Order No. R-6313, makes very difficult future planning by VIA to achieve a viable passenger rail service.
No one in this country, Mr. Speaker, denies the fact that we need a good rail passenger system. However, everyone is crying for a legislative mandate which would allow VIA rail to function in a businesslike manner. This Government, however, refuses to give it this mandate. It comes on with a piece of legislation which really says, "From now on, trust us. We are going to incorporate the kind of legislation necessary so that we will be forced to legislate any Crown corporations which we want to bring into existence". I would give the Government full credit if it were to bring forward a new VIA rail act to this House of Commons. I know it has been drafted on many occasions, yet the Government refuses to do so.
I would like to deal just briefly with Petro-Canada. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, when we were debating Petro-Canada, whether they would have done so, because the raison d'etre for creation of Petro-Canada International. I doubt very much whether they would have done so, because the raison d'etre for Petro-Canada at the time of debate was quite different than what in fact has occurred in reality. Today, Mr. Speaker, there are some 75 subsidiaries and joint enterprises functioning under Petro-Canada. They multiply like rabbits. It is incredible.
I would like to deal just briefly with another very important concern I have, a concern I am sure is shared by Hon. Members opposite. It is with respect to the responsibility of a Minister in so far as the discharge of his mandate under legislation, and I refer here to the National Transportation Act, by which it is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport to ensure that we have a sound, effective and efficient transportation system in this country. On the other hand he has a mandate to see that Air Canada, in this case a Crown corporation, functions in a proper fashion, ensuring that the best interests of Air Canada are served.
We have a situation now, Mr. Speaker, with the policy of deregulation announced by the Minister of Transport where there is some very real potential for conflict. As a matter of fact, we now have the Minister suggesting that he is going to instruct Air Canada to refrain from competitive pricing and scheduling practices which are not also engaged in by privately owned carriers. I see that, Mr. Speaker, as a direct conflict to the policy objective which he has enunciated, that is, to provide consumers with a wider range of price-service options better adapted to their differing needs; to invigorate the industry; to
promote national integration through increased domestic air travel; to improve the airline industries' efficiency and productivity and, of course, to bring down prices for the consumer.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that during the course of the committee hearings the potential conflict of the Minister, when he is carrying out the provisions of a broad act, such as the National Transportation Act, as compared to the responsibilities he must undertake in the discharge as the shareholder of a Crown corporation like Air Canada, will be examined and explored. I think this is an area that could cause some confusion. It certainly has the potential for conflict. The Standing Committee on Transport is now seized with the responsibility of dealing with this issue, and I would think it most important that this avenue be explored.


Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, when Bill C-24 was initially subjected to time limitation, I had an opportunity to make some comments of a very brief nature with respect to the Bill and my opposition to it. I welcome this opportunity to deal with the motion brought on by my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) which has the effect, if passed, of delaying second reading of Bill C-24 for a sufficient period of time that, under normal circumstances, would permit this House to experience an election. That would naturally obviate the need for the passage of this legislation.
It should be clearly apparent to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House generally, that my colleagues and I have demonstrated our revulsion to this particular piece of legislation. I listened with some interest to the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) who, as have some of his colleagues previously, commented that the debate on second reading was a useless exercise, and then proceeded to participate in the debate. If indeed speaking on second reading is useless, then I wonder why we bother with it at all? In the name of expediency I can well see this Liberal administration deciding that debate in itself is a waste of time and something to be discouraged and eliminated. After all, if we did not have to confront the public, if Members were whipped into shape so they all said the same thing, nothing could leak out to the public, and the media would not have an opportunity to deal with some of the problems confronting society and, in particular, this Government.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I reject out of hand any suggestion that speaking in this House is a useless exercise. In the event that there are other Liberal Members of Parliament who intend to speak further on this matter, they will hopefully reflect upon the logical conclusion that should be drawn from comments and urgings of that nature. The logical conclusion ought well to be that their services here may be eliminated if we do not have to speak at all. I know they say that we shall go into committee and that in committee we shall deal clause by clause with every provision of this Bill in an astute and reasonable fashion. It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that we have participated in that process, away from the television cameras
May 22, 1984

mind you, and we know that what the Government does in this House with respect to time allocation or closure is done in Committee through a voting process rapidly undertaken with respect to each individual clause of the Bill. There is no point in trying to deceive anyone as to what ultimately will happen. The Government Members will have their instructions and do as they are told. The senior public servants have determined that this legislation is exactly what they want, and their minions will carry out their will.
The legislation grants to the Government, through order in council in particular, the control of Crown corporations, those marvellous instruments whereby this Liberal administration has been able to create sinecures for their great friends while robbing the treasury and reaching into the pockets of average Canadians. It is principally those two concerns that lead my colleagues and I to oppose this Bill so vigorously. I know the purpose of the Bill is spelled out as being to control Crown corporations. Clause 1 says that, but then it proceeds to grant the control of Crown corporations to Governor-in-Council. The Governor-in-Council shall do this and do that and Parliament shall do very little.
The last time I spoke on this Bill, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that if it is looked at as establishing some form of accountability, one must ask: "Accountable to whom if not to Parliament? Accountable to the Governor-in-Council". Therein will lie the power of appointment and the fixing of salaries.
It is particularly interesting to note that the Government pamphlet on Crown corporations and other Government controlled corporate interests, published in March of 1984, lists a very significant number of features which apply to Crown corporations, except the salaries of the senior officers thereof. We are told that all of that information is secret and sacrosanct. It must be kept confidential. I ask why? Would it alarm the public to know what some of the senior officers of these Crown corporations, reaching into the public treasury and the pockets of Canadians, draw in salary for badly administering the affairs of the corporations themselves?
One great problem that surely cannot escape the attention of Liberal Members of this House is that there is no incentive to be productive or cut costs. There is no incentive to treat the assets of these corporations with the same attention and care that the individual directors would give to their own affairs. That is because there is no beneficial interest other than in the salaries which are paid to the senior bureaucrats, these quasibureaucrats appointed by Governor-in-Council to positions at salaries that could reach $227,900 a year. That, of course, is subject to bonus increases.
While we heard of the financial agonies suffered by Cana-dair and de Havilland, we also learned that certain officers of those aviation companies were drawing bonuses of over $115,000. What were they for, for producing losses? The answer, I suppose, by Government officials, is that in the event those bonuses were not paid those losses would have been greater. Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, when a Crown corporation competes with the private sector there is no stimulus or motivation to create the kind of profit we expect from the private sector.
Financial Administration Act
Those private sector profits generate the wealth which permits taxes to be imposed and services to be rendered by Government. These competing private sector Crown corporations, rather than contributing to the wealth and growth of this nation, are dragging it down. It is because of that, and the sinecure appointments, that we are most concerned about having real scrutiny and real accountability to this place, and that is absent from this Bill.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, it is not with great pleasure that I rise to speak for the second time on this Bill. The Liberal Party is indulging in a process of holding back some good legislation of which both sides of this House are in favour. In fact we are very much in favour of having a Bill to increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement for single old age pensioners come forward. However, I believe the Government now intends to allow that to drag over to the end of the session in case we have an election, at which time it will get sanctimonious as can be and pretend it was someone else's fault that we did not pass that Bill. We are very keen to pass it at any time.
This Bill is about Crown corporations. I have done some reading about the history of Crown corporations in Canada. One wonders why we are creating more and more Crown corporations year after year. I suspect it is because of the mindsets of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray). They experience a certain amount of pleasurable anticipation whenever a company or corporation in the private sector gets into difficulty. They see it as a golden opportunity to take it over and run it as a Crown corporation. With all the gigantic intellect which they have, they feel they will be able to make it into a paying concern. Some of the front benchers of the Government act more like senior civil servants than they do like representatives of the people. These senior civil servant types sometimes think they would have become fabulously wealthy had they gone into the private sector rather than into the Government sector. Through Cana-dair, CNR and other corporations they attempt to prove this fact. So far they have had a remarkable lack of success.
The debate as to whether we should do something to stop the proliferation of Crown corporations has been going on for more than 10 years. The need to clarify the purposes for which these corporations are formed and the need to make them accountable is well recognized. However, these needs never seem to be promoted in the form of legislation. Our Party has moved a motion for six months' hoist of this Bill simply because it represents one more failure of the Government to address the real issues surrounding the Crown corporations which are wholly or partially owned by the Government of Canada.
I would like to quote a very distinguished former Member of this House, the Hon. Robert Stanfield. On March 26, 1973 the Liberals were introducing a Bill to establish the Canada Development Corporation. At the time Mr. Stanfield said:

May 22, 1984
Financial Administration Act
The Canada Development Corporation was established, so far as I can see, without any strategy except the establishment of another investment company in Canada in which the Government would have some interest. It is meaningless in this sense, and for that reason I oppose it, Mr. Speaker. For that reason, I see little significance in it, despite the repetition of Ministers of the Crown that it is a vehicle to enable Canadians to invest in Canada. It might even be that some people will be hurt in the process.
He went on to say:
-the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has taken the position that transfer of shares of Polymer Corporation to the Canada Development Corporation is just some kind of intergovernmental transaction. I am sorry the President of the Treasury Board is not here at the moment; but that, of course, was not an honest statement-
That is the fuzziness we run into whenever the Government brings in another Bill. It seems to feel it would be a terrible thing to be open about the purposes of a Bill and why it wants yet another Crown corporation. This Bill comes a little closer to clarity if one reads between the lines. It says that this is:
An Act to provide for the financial administration of the Government of Canada, the establishment and maintenance of the accounts of Canada and the control of Crown corporations.
That is a change made to the Financial Administration Act by this Bill. I think it is a confession by the Government that the Crown corporations are out of control, and this Act is supposed to bring them into control. It is the lack of disclosure which bothers us on this side as well as the lack of a clear definition of the role of Parliament. In fact, Parliament is almost invariably left out of this.
Parliament is supposed to review annual reports, summaries of corporate plans, budgets, and Government directives to Crown corporations. However, Parliament will not see the plans and budgets of these corporations in their entirety. Nor is there any time limit for the tabling of these documents by the responsible Minister. The Bill provides that complete audit reports must be prepared on a regular basis, but does not ensure that these will be made available to Parliament in their entirety.
When looking for what will be made available and what will not, we find that the new requirements for accountability are offset by other provisions to restrict the activities of auditors and examiners, ensuring that little, if any, controversial information would be released to Parliament. Each Crown corporation would have to establish an audit committee to oversee any audits or special examinations that are carried out. The audit committee would protect the interests of the board of directors. Of that we can be sure.
The Bill neglects a number of significant issues, including the privileges and immunities of Crown corporations with respect to other legislation such as the Combines Investigation Act. What will be the impact of the long promised competition legislation on the activities of the many Crown corporations which have complete or near monopolies in their markets? The Bill does not address the issue of placing public servants on the boards of Crown corporations, nor does it give Parliament any powers to oversee the appointment of the chief executive officers of these corporations. The power rests entirely with the Government in Council, the cabinet. We have seen lately what they are likely to do with a Crown corporation.
Tired hacks of the Liberal Party who have been defeated and driven out of this Chamber, or have retired of their own volition, have gone to what turns out to be far greener grounds. The former Minister of National Defence, Mr. Danson, was appointed to the board of directors of de Havilland. He has now received another plum, appointment as the Canadian Consul-General to Boston. His salary range is $60,870 to $71,550. Considering what the management of most Crown corporations get paid, he has taken a considerable cut in salary.
It is difficult to tell, Mr. Speaker, how the Government determines what shall be a Crown corporation. In reviewing Schedule I of this Bill, it is rather interesting to try to determine whether a Crown corporation should be a board. The National Energy Board is a regulatory body and not a Crown corporation. However, the Agricultural Stabilization Board is a Crown corporation, and the Atomic Energy Control Board is a Crown corporation, while the Canadian RadioTelevision and Telecommunications Commission is a regulatory body. They are all controlled by the cabinet of the country. We feel that Parliament should have more say about them.
To give the House an idea of the different types of organizations within Crown corporations, I will refer to Schedule B of this Bill. I see reference to the Agricultural Stabilization Board. The Canada Employment and Immigration Commission is a Crown corporation. The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety is a Crown corporation. Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is actually a corporation. The next one is an odd one; the Director of Soldier Settlement. I am not sure whether the Director is a Crown corporation or the Soldier Settlement Organization is a Crown corporation. The Veterans' Land Act is a corporation. The Economic Council of Canada is a Crown corporation. The National Museums of Canada is a Crown corporation. And last, but by no means least known, is Loto Canada Incorporated. It is a Crown corporation which came in with a very fuzzy charter. It is impossible to find out how it is going to operate, when and where, or whether it will be legal.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: 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 Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Status of Women (a) Native women's rights, (b) Women's attendance at Edmonton conference; the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) (a)
May 22, 1984

Employment-British Columbia statistics, (b) Railway upgrading-Benefits for British Columbia; the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett)-Fisheries-Atlantic salmon stock-Prevention of poaching.



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 on the amendment of Mr. Cros-bie (p. 3688).
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak again to this Bill, particularly with respect to the motion moved by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). The point that we are trying to make is that we are not satisfied with this Bill. If the Government were given six months it could possibly make some improvements and return with the legislation that is required to get control of Crown corporations. I suggest the Government should consider this proposal seriously as a result of the complaints it has heard about this Bill, even from some people in the better Crown corporations who have said that it is inadequate.
This Bill should be set aside for Government reconsideration. I believe this whole matter should be discussed in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs because we deal with many such issues in this committee. We have dealt with the problems of many Crown corporations. I would suggest that perhaps the committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs is more aware of how Crown corporations can fail the citizens of this country. A six-month hoist would allow the Government to consider amendments that would strengthen the proposals in this Bill, and allow it to enact legislation that would keep these Crown corporations under control.
That lack of control is most evident in the recent example of de Havilland. de Havilland is having an extremely difficult time, yet during this period when it lost hundreds of millions of dollars the senior executives have received bonuses. I do not believe that any member of the House would consider that a sound move by the directors of de Havilland. It is absurd that a corporation which should be making money, but is losing money because of bad management, should pay its executive a bonus.
Financial Administration Act
There should be measures within this Bill dealing with management of Crown corproations. We have reviewed many cases where it has been shown that there has been total incompetence by management as well as interference by civil servants. These civil servants are the associate deputy minister, an assistant deputy minister and the deputy minister. They become involved in the affairs of something about which they know nothing. They are civil servants who have never worked in the real world. This Bill should take that fact into account. It does not.
Let me suggest some other changes that are required in this legislation. Every Crown corporation should be subject to a comprehensive audit, an audit that cannot be modified by the Minister in charge of a corporation. A cabinet Minister, no matter what Party is in power, should not be permitted to change a comprehensive audit.
Unfortunately, this Bill does nothing to require subsidiaries of Crown corporations to be accountable to the House of Commons. Consequently, there will be a proliferation of new small Crown corporations. We will see mini Petro-Canada's, and mini de Havilland's breeding throughout the country, resulting in a total loss of control or understanding of these corporations.
I believe some of these Crown corporations could be run successfully. It would be ideal if they could be run properly and then sold to the public of this country as positive and strong investments. We have not addressed the structural problem of Crown corporations and their operations. We have not dealt with the fact that they are immune from any Combines investigation. I do not believe Crown corporations should be treated differently from those in the private sector; whatever is good for the goose is good for the gander.
This Bill should make it clear that there is no room for public servants on the board. The committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs has discovered that this has created chaos in several instances. The Bill should allow for parliamentary scrutiny and total in depth review of the three to five-year programs and budgets of Crown corporations. These Crown corporations always come before Parliament after they have lost hundreds of millions of dollars. We are never forewarned about the dangers into which these corporations may be falling.
The CDIC was created by the Government but never approved by the House. The legislation respecting that corporation is sitting on the Order Paper today as Bill C-25. Parliament was never consulted or given an opportunity to consider this Crown corporation in the House or in committee. We only learned of CDIC when we were advised at a hearing into Canadair and de Havilland that it would be representing those two companies. Furthermore, the officers of CDIC had no knowledge of what had transpired in those corporations. Yet the Government was there to bail out those companies.
One change in particular that is required in this legislation concerns the 30-day restriction on a committee to debate any new Crown corporation. I sit on committees and know that 30 days can be divided in many ways. It could be an hour and a

May 22, 1984
Financial Administration Act
half a day for two days a week. Is that 30 days considered on a calendar basis or is it 30 sitting days of at least four and a half or six hours a day?
Furthermore, how can the Government introduce closure on any new Crown corporation legislation by stating that there will be no more than seven hours of debate? If we were to consider an extreme situation, such as at Christmas, a committee could sit for an hour and a half for five days to make up seven and a half hours of debate in committee. We could then be told that we must restrain debate to seven hours in the House of Commons.
Not only are there weaknesses in this Bill, it contains flagrant violations of the rights of Canadians. We must not accept this Bill but address the changes to it that are required. We have moved this motion for a six-month hoist so that we may give it some input and let the Government know what will be satisfactory to Canadians.
I would like to suggest that we create on a permanent basis a joint Senate-House committee strictly for Crown corporations. When you realize that there are 400 or 500 Crown corporations to deal with, that means a lot of time. We should be presented with three to five-year working programs. We should be presented with an annual budget before the year starts. Final audited statements should be presented subsequently. As a result we would have an opportunity to grasp whether the corporation should be sold, whether it should have new management, be wound up, or whatever. But we do not have enough information to make a judgment, spending only a few days in committee.
I understand that my allocated time has expired. I would like to thank the House for allowing me to speak for a few minutes. I think it is very important to defeat this Bill on second reading because it is not productive. There are too many imperfections in it which must be changed.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak for the second time on this Bill. We are now debating a motion to grant leave of the House to study this Bill for an additional six months before putting it into effect. That makes sense to our Party. What we are doing is initiating a very great change in the methodology of setting up Crown corporations. More important, we are deciding how those corporations will be made responsible to Canada's shareholders through the House of Commons and Parliament.
I think we realize, in this corner at least, that to only a small degree what we are doing is changing the rules for establishing a corporation. A number of years ago, shortly after I arrived here, we changed the methodology for establishing corporations in the public sector.
As I understand the history of corporations and the involvement of the Crown, at one time it was the Crown-I am talking now of 400 or 500 years ago-which granted leave to a group of individuals to establish a corporation. It provided those individuals with some basic rights and privileges. They
were privileges then and they are now. I will spend a little time during remarks dealing with some of the privileges.
One of the first Crown corporations of importance in Canada was the Hudson's Bay Company. It was granted a charter by the King of England which the Hudson's Bay Company gave the right and the privilege to trade in goods and furs in a very vast territory, part of what is now Canada and a little of what became part of the United States. That was a very great privilege, Mr. Speaker. Subsequent corporations also had very great privileges not afforded ordinary citizens and unincorporated small business. For one thing, corporations live forever. They never have to pay estate taxes or come to an end when an accounting has to be made. Consequently, when taxes are deferred in a corporate sense because there is no end to a corporation; the taxes can be continually deferred and are in essence never paid. When it comes to raising funds, corporations have the advantage. Under our tax laws they can raise money through publicly traded shares. There is an opportunity to participate in the Indexed Security Investment Plan, ISIP, which has the effect of lowering the cost of that money to the corporation and grants a consequent advantage as well to the investor. These are advantages which individuals attempting to run a business do not have. As well, corporations in the private sector have lower tax rates. Privileges granted are varied and many.
It was only a few years ago, within my memory, that to start a private corporation one required the assent of the Crown, through this House and through the Senate; later, it became one or the other. No longer is that assent required. Private corporations can be established without coming to one of the Houses of Parliament.
I suppose in fairness we can say that there appears to be some attempt by Government to make that same route available for the establishment of a Crown corporation. There appears to be some movement in this Bill to spend less time going to the House of Commons or the Senate to establish a Crown corporation. We will not argue a great deal about that since the principles and the practice has changed for the other corporations in our economy. Perhaps it is time to allow the same rights and privileges to Crown corporations. We do see some problems, however, when it comes to control of these Crown corporations.
In theory, private corporations are controlled by the shareholders who meet occasionally to select directors, then direct the business of the corporation, usually through the chief executive officer who is responsible to the board of directors, who in turn are supposedly responsible to the shareholders. With Crown corporations that chain of command is much more fuzzy. I think most of the speeches in the last several days on this Bill have brought that out. Members have pointed out rightly that it is very difficult sometimes for the shareholders in Crown corporations to get information, and that the appointment of the chief executive officer in most instances is by the cabinet rather than by the appointed board of directors. These practices create the potential for some problems. Therefore, we think it is worthwhile for this House to spend some
May 22, 1984

time in committee attempting to work out the apparent problems, and to try to make the rules very similar for both kinds of corporations.
In passing, I think I would be remiss if I did not point out that the publicly traded corporations also have problems with regard to shareholder information. I am sure the shareholders of Dome Petroleum did not know how much trouble Dome was in until after the fact, just as this House acting on behalf of the Canadian shareholders did not know how much trouble Canadair and de Havilland were in until after the fact. It works both ways, Mr. Speaker.
When we study the Bill for the next six months, as I hope we will be able to, I hope those facts will be remembered and considered when methodologies are being worked out for Crown corporations.
It has been mentioned a number of times that the functions we require Crown corporations to perform vary sometimes. Crown corporations are set up to augment our cultural diversity. We have the Canada Council, for instance. We have been attempting to increase the Canadian content of our theatre and performing arts. We have established a movie industry through the National Film Board. We have the CBC. Originally, these corporations were set up, not to make a profit or to perform a commercial service but to be an extension of the cultural life of this country and to augment that cultural heritage.
We do have a number of Crown corporations which are clearly set up to provide an economic service. Those do an excellent job, particularly when they are performing services that we all must use. A Crown corporation has the economic advantage of being able to supply that service without the requirement of charging enough for the service to generate a profit for the shareholders.
The shareholders of Crown corporations, namely the people of Canada, are quite in agreement. They will simply accept good services from Crown corporations; they are not interested in generating great profits. In fact they are attempting to have the services performed at cost, since all of us use the services of those corporations.
It is suitable to study the Bill for an additional six months so that the method of reporting to the House can be clarified and better understood, not only by Members of the House but by members of the public. The role of naming an auditor, which usually rests with shareholders, should be clarified. Members of Parliament have at their disposal the Auditor General of Canada. It has not been made clear in this legislation that the Auditor General can be utilized as our auditor, whether he will be called in or whether he has the option of moving in and conducting comprehensive audits of corporations. This should be made clear to Members of the House and to the public so that we understand what will be the role of Crown corporations in the future.
Financial Administration Act


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, we are reminded on the first page of Bill C-24 that this is an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.
I should like to begin by saying that the arrogance of this Government in dealing with national business is boundless. In applying closure to the debate on Bill C-24 it continues to exhibit, even in its death throes, a complete absence of any appreciation for the rights of Canadians to understand fully the purpose of legislation through the ordinary process of unhampered discussion in the House. At a time when the Government's credibility is practically zero, it seems strange that its Members continue to maintain the attitude, "Well, the Government knows best". This stance has been the Government's hallmark throughout past years.
I believe there is a place for Crown corporations in Canada. This is particularly true when the private sector is either unable or unwilling to co-operate in the implementation of programs to fulfil legitimate government policy. Under such circumstances it is preferable that government enter the field as a competitor rather than in a monopoly position. It appears that the present Government has completely lost the capacity to inspire Canadians to invest in worthwhile investments that would move the nation forward confidently and voluntarily. It pushes forward in a bull-headed and brutal fashion to force through programs which are often misguided and harmful to the economy. Then of course it can draw upon the taxpayers' purse to meet its financial obligations. In my view the role of Government is to administer the affairs of the country in accordance with the will of the people. This is not the course that is being followed by the present Government.
As I think back to the time when I first heard about the details of the measure before us, it appeared that the Government was responding to the demand for some fundamental changes to the way in which it was dealing with the issue of Crown corporations. A closer appraisal of the proposed amendments in Bill C-24, however, showed that the changes at best were illusory. Over the past several years, successive Auditors General have severely reprimanded the Government for neglecting its responsibility by allowing Crown corporations free rein in the conduct of their business, to the extent that they now constitute a sub-government. As I have stated, any seeming improvement through the provisions of Bill C-24 is only a mirage.
Much has been said about the proliferation of Crown corporations. As I listened to the broadcast when the Bill was first introduced and the proposed amendments were outlined, I heard reference that in the future the creation of Crown corporations would require parliamentary approval by means of a special Act. At that time I said to my wife, who was listening to the program as well, that it appeared the Government was finally listening to the criticisms of the Opposition in the House and was now prepared to make some significant changes. However, I was wrong. It appears that parliamentary approval applies only to parent corporations, not to subsidiar-

May 22, 1984
Financial Administration Act
ies. It has been through these subsidiaries that the greatest proliferation has taken place. Therefore, it seems to me that the Government has side-stepped the opportunity and the responsibility to call a halt to the multiplicity of organizations that are set up, many of which compete against private industry in various sectors of the economy.
There is a fear that Bill C-24 could be interpreted to indicate that Ministers of the Crown may not be bound by its prohibition on the creation of parent corporations. As has been pointed out, Section 16 of the Interpretation Act indicates that no statute binds the Crown unless the statute specifically states that it is applicable to the Crown. It seems there is no clause in this Bill which expressly does this.
There are a great many serious weaknesses in the Bill before us. These have been pointed out in very clear terms. For instance, under the terms of Bill C-24, the so-called board of directors would be little more than an advisory agency, while the Cabinet would direct the affairs of the corporation by, as indicated by the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson) in his address on the Bill, appointing the auditor, approving by-laws and even making by-laws for the board, setting dividend policy and directing the board on the conduct of the corporation's business and affairs.
On different occasions my Leader has set out a very clear statement of policy in regard to Crown corporations. I regret there is not time to place them all on the record today. However, they have been propounded, explained and stated in various parts of the country. The basic principles as outlined by my Leader would do much to improve the situation as far as Crown corporations are concerned. They would bring to the people a sense of confidence, knowing that under these policies and under these principles Crown corporations, which have been a law unto themselves and have drawn so heavily upon the purses of the people, will finally be responsible and accountable, not just to the Government but to the House of Commons.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I spoke in the debate earlier and I shall now speak to this amendment.
We have had eight full days of debate on Bill C-24, with 28 hours of debate during those eight days. We have heard from approximately 120 speakers on this particular Bill. We now find that the opposition still wants to put up more and more speakers to delay consideration of this Bill in committee.
Many of the issues raised by the opposition are issues that are rightfully dealt with by a Standing Committee where witnesses can be called, where the Bill can be scrutinized clause by clause and where individual issues can be dealt with in depth. However, the opposition refuses to let the Bill go to committee; rather, opposition Members wish to put up speaker after speaker.
Unfortunately, I must indicate that most of those speakers do not have a clue as to what they are talking about. In many cases, opposition Members have had speeches drafted for them
by others and they have parroted those words verbatim. Those speeches have been full of mistakes and errors.
Not 15 minutes ago, we heard the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) say that there are now 400 to 500 Crown corporations and that the number is growing by the day. About two weeks ago on May 8, Mr. Speaker, every Member of Parliament received a document entitled Crown Corporations and Other Canadian Government Corporate Interests. That document lists them all, Mr. Speaker. It lists parent corporations, subsidiaries, joint ventures and all of the corporate interests and Crown corporations of the Government of Canada.
This is the fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker. The number of parent Crown corporations, the kind of corporations of which Hon. Members opposite are so deathly afraid, does not add up to 400 to 500, 300 to 400 or 100 to 200. In fact, there are 67 such Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker. There are not 400 to 500 subsidiaries of parent Crown corporations. There are in fact 128 of them. The total number of parent corporations and wholly owned subsidiaries is 195, not 400 to 500; not some unknown number. The number is known and it is listed right here. Every Member of Parliament has had this document for over two weeks. The problem is that opposition Members do not take the time to read the documents they receive that are relevant to the debate that is going on in the House of Commons.
Let us talk about the numbers of subsidiary corporations of which the Crown owns less than 100 per cent; in other words, Crown corporations in which the Crown participates with some other agency or entity in the ownership. These corporations must be dealt with in a different fashion from wholly owned Crown corporations, must be dealt with in a somewhat more confidential manner as far as reporting goes because private interests as well as public interests are involved. That makes sense, Mr. Speaker, and the Bill provides for that. There are 30 such corporations of which the Crown owns more than 50 per cent and less than 100 per cent.
As well, Mr. Speaker, there are associate corporations. For example, Petro-Canada may enter into a joint venture with another corporation to develop an offshore well. In these cases, the Crown owns less than 50 per cent of the corporation and is a minority shareholder. There are 64 such corporations. There are 18 joint and mixed enterprises, Mr. Speaker. There are 195 Crown corporations in the sense most people know of them owned entirely by the Crown. There are an additional 112 other interests that the Crown owns through its Crown corporations or by other means, along with businesses, enterprises or other forms of agencies in Canada.
It is time that we come to a decision on this Bill at second reading stage. My gosh, we are not talking about third reading stage and we are not talking about making the Bill law. We are talking about passing in principle the notion that Crown corporations should be under greater control and should be more accountable. We are sending this Bill to committee so that we can look at its individual provisions. It is long since past the time for this House to come to a decision on Bill C-24.
May 22, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. It being 4:45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Order made Wednesday, May 16, 1984, to interrupt proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the Bill now before the House.
Therefore, the first question is on the following motion: Mr. Gray, seconded by Mrs. Begin, moves 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 now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.

And on the amendment of Mr. Crosbie (St. John's West), seconded by 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."

The question is on the amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in order to save the time of the House, there may be a disposition to have the numbers

May 22, 1984
Airports
counted on this last vote in the reverse order as though a vote were taken, even though there are only eight NDP Members in Tardif the House at the present time.	Tobin
Tousignant


An Hon. Member:: Ten. He cannot count.
Messrs.
Trudeau
Turner
Veillette
Watson
++NAYS
Weatherhead Whelan Yanakis-119.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, as is always the case, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) cannot count. That seems to be a fatal flaw among Tory House leaders. However, we would be happy to have the vote count in the way the Member has indicated, and we have no more Members missing than do the Tories.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[ Translation]


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, we agree, provided the Liberal vote is recorded as supporting second reading and the motion is adopted.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion shall be carried with the reverse of the vote on the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: 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 the time allowed for the consideration of Private Members' Business has come to an end."]
Mr. Speaker:: Shall all orders and items preceding No. 103 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture . . . of Transport!
Mrs. Eva Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport: Mr. Speaker, there is no harm done. After all, I did chair the Standing Committee on Agriculture for two years, but I am now Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.
May 22, 1984

Concerning the motion of the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) who is asking to have the name of the International Airport changed to National Capital International Airport, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not disagree with the proposal, although-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have not yet proposed the motion. Therefore, I cannot give the Hon. Member the floor.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed debate, from Friday, January 27, 1984, on the motion of Mr. Isabelle that Bill C-207, an Act respecting the International Airport at Ottawa, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mrs. Cote).


Mrs. Eva Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the proposal before the House to change the name of Ottawa International Airport to National Capital International Airport, although it may seem rather strange to have the terms national and international together in the same name.
I do not disagree, because the name reflects my concept of the region. In fact, even if Ottawa is legally and in fact the capital of our country, we must remember that the people, whether they live in Ottawa, Nepean, Gloucester, Aylmer, Hull or Gatineau, all feel part of the capital. This feeling has been strengthened further in recent years as a result of the presence of the National Capital Commission and the wide usage of the term: National Capital Region.
I am sure that is the basis for the Bill being proposed by my hon. friend, the Member for Hull. I wish to congratulate him for giving such eloquent expression to his ideas, and he is certainly a great Canadian for doing so.
I am sure that many people in the riding of Hull, as in other ridings and municipalities in the region, agree with the Hon. Member and support the Bill he is defending in the House today. I therefore cannot disagree. However, neither can I agree. Let me explain.
I cannot disagree, for all the reasons I have just mentioned, which reflect that sense of belonging to this beautiful region that is the site of our Parliament.
However, this feeling is an emotional one which, although entirely laudable, may blind us to the practical implications of a gesture that, on the face of it, has no negative consequences.
Airports
However, there are negative consequences, serious enough to prevent me, as a Member of this House, from supporting officially-as I indeed do morally or perhaps I should say emotionally-the proposal being made by the Member for Hull.
According to well established policy, the name of an airport must include the name of the principal geographical entity in the region. That is true in the case of Ottawa International Airport. If we look at the population of the various municipalities that belong to the National Capital Region, Ottawa has nearly 300,000 people, compared with some 85,000 in Nepean,
75.000	in Gatineau, 73,000 in Gloucester, 53,000 in Hull,
27.000	in Aylmer, 20,000 in Kanata and 19,000 in Vanier. It is clear that Ottawa is the principal entity in the region, not only geographically but also demographically. According to the policy of the federal Department of Transport, it is entirely logical to keep the name Ottawa in the name of the region's main airport.
Some people might think it makes sense to include the name of Gloucester in the name of the airport, since the major part of the airport is located in Gloucester, with only part of the airport being on Ottawa territory. Perhaps I could give the Member for Hull an example that is closer to home. The CEGEP de l'Outaouais was known for a long time as the CEGEP de Hull, although it is located within the municipal limits of the Town of Aylmer. However, it has never been known as the CEGEP d'Aylmer. Therefore, we cannot say Ottawa-Gloucester International Airport, or vice versa. Similarly, there can be no Ottawa-Nepean airport, even if Nepean is the second largest municipality in the region in terms of population.
In any case, changing the present name of Ottawa International Airport would lead to a host of similar requests, which, if approved, would make things totally confusing for the travelling public, especially for international flights. For instance, we could rename Dorval Airport as Metropolitan Airport, which would be inaccurate, in any case. And what about Aeroport de la vielle capitale instead of Aeroport de Quebec? I could go on, but I am sure that my hon. friends on the this side of the House, and perhaps even some on the opposite side, have enough imagination to find similar examples.
My hon. friends opposite will probably jump at the opportunity to argue, according to their own peculiar premises, that we might as well change the name of the airport in Ottawa since that is what we just did with Toronto International Airport. Perhaps I may point out that Toronto International Airport is still known by that name, except that we have added the name of the Hon. Lester B. Pearson, a great Canadian and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Thus, the new name of the

May 22, 1984
Airports
airport in Toronto respects the letter and intent of Transport Canada's policy.
It not only respects our domestic policy but also international standards according to which the name of international airports must refer to the name of the principal geographic entity served by the airport concerned .
In terms of aviation safety, for over twenty years the International Civil Aviation Organization has been examining the designation of airports. The standard set by the ICAO and observed by all member States, including Canada, prescribes-I am not using the same terms-that the name of an international airport must include the name of the localities served and the name of the airport. On that basis, we could possibly rename Ottawa Airport as Ottawa National Capital Airport. However, this is a tautology if there ever was one, and it adds nothing for Canadians who already know that Ottawa is their national capital. Nor does it give anything more to the Quebec residents of the Ottawa region-ably represented by the Hon. Member for Hull-since the name Ottawa is still there. If I may guess about the motivations of the Hon. Member for Hull, I would say that he wants the word Ottawa taken out of the name of the airport and call it the airport of the region as a whole. However, because of the policies of Transport Canada and the international agreements, the word Ottawa has to stay.
I would also mention financial reasons which prevent me from supporting the commendable Bill of my colleague from Hull. Indeed, expenses for new signs at the Ottawa airport and for advertising the new name are not justified, if only because the aim of the Hon. Member for Hull, which is to eliminate the word Ottawa, would not even be reached. Besides, I hardly think that national unity, of which my colleague from Hull is such a strong advocate, would stand to gain from the change he has in mind. I would even suggest that the change might raise a controversy among Quebec residents of the Ottawa region since the Gatineau airport serves the same region as well.
I would not want my colleagues in the Official Opposition- I was going to say permanent-make comparisons with the new name of the Toronto airport and the expenses incurred as a result of that change. I think that the memory of Lester B. Pearson and the ideals he defended all his life deserved to be recalled to all Canadians by naming after him the Toronto International Airport, Canada's largest. The expenditures involved in the case of Toronto can thus be historically justified.
Since I am on the subject of expenditures, I might remind Hon. Members that under an upgrading and expansion program, the Ottawa airport will have a larger passenger terminal as well as redesigned access roads and parking lots. The work should be completed in 1987.
The Ottawa airport has become a source of inconvenience to regular users and people visiting the National Capital Region.
Passengers are fully aware of those problems: during peak hours, there are very frustrating bottlenecks and delays, so there is no need to make matters worse by changing the name.
The proposed improvements reflect the region's new tourist facilities such as hotels and the convention centre. Along with the Rideau Centre development, which plays a catalytic role in the local economy, the airport project will help attract investors and support the diversification of Ottawa's economy.
In 1981, roughly two million passengers used the Ottawa airport and, according to forecasts made by Transport Canada in August 1982, the airport will have to accommodate 2.7 million travelers in 1991. Those people will not see any advantage in using the National Capital airport rather than the Ottawa International Airport.
I do not know whether the Hon. Member for Hull has discussed his project with his colleagues from Western Quebec or the authorities of the Gatineau airport. But I am convinced that the objections to this proposal could be numerous and vigorous. I do not know why we should agree to a name change which, while doing nothing useful as such, could be harmful to another airport in which so much money and efforts have been invested.
On this point, I would like to remind the House that normally, to make such a change, the opinion of the community whose image could be affected has to be polled. To my knowledge, there has not been any such consultation.
I would also like to remind the Members of this House of the background of the airport whose name the Hon. Member for Hull proposes to have changed. During the twenties, there was an attempt to lay out an airfield where the Ottawa airport is now located to be used by airplanes. This endeavour had mixed success, at least until the Spirit of St. Louis, piloted by none other than Charles Lindbergh, landed at the airfield in 1927. Following this, the Ottawa Flying Club was created in 1928 and the Upland Realty Corporation rented the airfield for pilot training. Then, in 1936, Laurentian Air Services purchased the airport on a contract basis and sold it to the Department of Transport. It was at that time that the name of the Ottawa Airport came to be used.
From the early days of aviation and until the Second World War, the custom was to name airfields after famous civil or military pilots. For instance, the Toronto International Airport was called Bishop Field, the Winnipeg International Airport, Stevenson Field, and the Calgary International Airport, McCall Field. This practice spread throughout the country except for Ottawa. To my knowledge, the Ottawa Airport was never known after any person; it was always called the Ottawa Airport.
After the Second World War and with the immense growth in popularity of aviation, it became the practice to designate the airports by the name of the major city, community or region they served, especially in the case of major airports. I
May 22, 1984

would like to underline that this practice was not the result of a whim or pure fantasy, but was based on logic. We found it very important if not essential for airplane operators and pilots to know immediately where they were from the name of the airport for the purposes of navigation and communications.
Any confusion must therefore be avoided in order not to affect air security. By giving a busy airport a name different from that of the community where it is located, we would be increasing the volume of communications needed between pilots and controllers. Of course, this would add to the hazards of confusion, especially when sophisticated names are shortened or abbreviated after a certain time. In short, Mr. Speaker, it is wiser to include the name of its true location of the airport.
Finally, and at the risk of repeating myself, I am sure that the intentions of the Hon. Member for Hull in proposing this Bill are good. He is undoubtedly trying, as any good Member would do, to obtain an identification appropriate for his constituency. Or perhaps he is trying in this way to support the efforts of our party to maintain and strengthen national unity. In fact, the Hon. Member has proposed this name change so often that it is reasonable to believe that he may be the First Member of our party to be so concerned about national unity!
I sincerely believe that the position of the Government should be to postpone passage of this Bill until such a time as the necessary studies and consultations have been completed. If such studies and consultations were to support the proposal of the Hon. Member for Hull, I would be most happy to join him in voting for his proposal, which he will certainly present to this House again.
Nothing would have given me more pleasure than granting this support to the Hon. Member for Hull today, but as I said earlier in my comments, I must not let my emotions get the better of my reason and allow a change which, while being desirable under certain aspects, would also involve certain hazards. Let me make myself clear. If it can be shown that the proposed change is desirable and would benefit the region, the airport and the nation, I shall be glad to go with it. Unfortunately, this is not yet the case and I hope that the Hon. Member for Hull, and all those who support him, will understand my position.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mrs. Cote) accept one brief question as a matter of information? I listened carefully to her speech and I do not know if it was the translation being interrupted briefly, but I missed one comment in her speech. Would she give me that one point as a matter of information?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Standing Orders do not provide for questioning members at this time. But, of
Airports
course, if the House grants its unanimous consent, this could be feasible. Is there unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary went on at some length in her speech about the renaming of the Toronto International Airport. I thought she began to say what the costs were. If she did give a figure, may I have that figure? If she did not, then I will proceed.


Eva Lachance Côté: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question, I did not mention costs, but I said that the change had certainly resulted in justifiable costs in view of the historic importance of the change.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, before I deal directly with the Bill, I want to make a couple of points. First, I was intrigued and would be interested in knowing during some point in the debate this afternoon how this Bill has come before us a second time when there are bills by other members which are on the list but have not yet been dealt with. I took the trouble to read through the last debate on this Bill which was on January 27. I was intrigued to see that there was a reference made to a December 15, 1983, presentation of the Bill. This leads me to believe that this is the third time, not the second, it has been dealt with. I know that there are a number of members' names that have been drawn for the Private Members' list and their bills have not been dealt with yet.
The second point I want to make concerns the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mrs. Cote). I listened to her information in some detail. I would be interested to know why she did not refer to the Ottawa Airport as Uplands Airport, as it was known for many years. I still speak to a number of people who refer to that airport as Uplands.
I also have a third point. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I recall very clearly a few months ago when you castigated a member on this side of the House who had been in the House but for a very short time, having come here as a result of a byelection. I recall you stopped him three times as he read his text. I noticed that throughout the Parliamentary Secretary read her text intact. She has been here a good deal longer and should have the expertise. She was not stopped once. I find that passing strange, Sir.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair is ready to answer the two questions raised by the Hon. Member. The first concerns his surprise at the House considering for the second time Bill C-207 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle). Hon. Members are called by table officers before a Bill is brought to the House. They are asked whether they are ready to proceed. I am

May 22, 1984
Airports
informed that the Hon. Member for Hull was the only member ready to proceed.
With regard to the second question, namely, the reading of a speech by the Parliamentary Secretary, I refer the Hon. Member to citation 310 found in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition on page 102. This citation gives certain exceptions, namely, Members who speak on behalf of a Minister. Obviously the Parliamentary Secretary was reading a speech prepared by the department and, therefore, should be allowed to read the text.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the first question, to which you have now related, raised by the Hon. Member about the way in which private members' business is selected. It was generally understood, I think, by the committee that looked into this matter and decided on the new methodology we adopted when we adopted the new Standing Orders six, nine, or twelve months ago, that as a general rule the committee believed an individual Member who had spoken on a Bill or had his Bill considered prior would not be called again until all other Members had been covered. The way the Standing Orders are written that understanding is not interpreted in that same way. As a result, the Privy Council Office which asks the Members who are ready has to follow the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders now say that one must go through the list again and again rather than restricting the list only to those who have not had an opportunity to present a Bill.
It is the view on this side of the House that if the committee or some group could be reconstituted to look at that question, to clarify the rules, and to put them back to the way in which I personally believe the committee meant them to be, we would certainly be prepared to participate in that kind of an exercise.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you might want to think of your colleague in the chair, the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), who was involved in the committee on that particular aspect of Private Members' Business, and the suggestion of convening a committee composed of representatives from all sides of the House to look at that question. Other Members have raised the issue with me in the past.


John Raymond Ellis: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleague for his explanation. I certainly agree that the committee's intention was as he has expressed it, and not in the way we are now proceeding.
Let me then deal with the Bill. I read with some interest the interventions that were made on Friday, January 27. I do not intend to quote from them verbatim. Perhaps I will be subject to censure if I get off the track a little bit. The Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) was at that time, I believe, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. He made the point that he did not think that the name of the airport should be changed unless it was changed to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport. The Hon. Member said this was the first airport seen by most people coming to the area. I have news for that Member. Some people may recall a monologue done by Mr. Bill Cosby, a comedian from the United States, who was here a few years ago. The first ten minutes of his
monologue had to do with getting in and out of the capital of Canada. The point he made was that you cannot get there from here and you cannot get here from there.


Benno Friesen: That is why it should be called the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport.


John Raymond Ellis: It was one of the funniest monologues I have ever heard. Frankly what he said was true. I do not know of any major place from which you may travel directly to Ottawa. You have to go somewhere else first and then come to Ottawa. Ottawa is not a very well scheduled airport. Then, of course, it is not much of an airport when you get here. It is one of five that were designed exactly the same. The federal Government has a habit when it finds a plan or design that is particularly inadequate to copy it. The design of this airport can be found in five different cities in Canada. You can walk through Halifax Airport, Newfoundland, and others, all designed from the same set of blueprints. You have that awful feeling of deja vu. Sure enough, the airport is another copy.
As to the name of the airport, I find I am unable to support the change advocated by my good friend and colleague from Hull. I know his intentions are the very best, but I could spend the rest of the time this evening in Private Members' Hour just mentioning airports I know that do not exist in the community for which they are named. Toronto International Airport is located in Mississauga. Edmonton Airport is located south of Edmonton some 25 miles. That situation is not only true of Canada, it is to be found overseas as well. I am thinking of Bonn, Germany. You fly to Frankfurt International Airport and then go by car to Bonn. It is not very far. It is not any farther than from Edmonton Airport to downtown Edmonton. Vancouver Airport is another. It is located in Richmond. What about London? There are a number of other cities with this same situation.
By naming the airport Ottawa-Hull, or as the revised Bill reads, the National Capital Airport, will not help a whole lot. If you are flying to Ottawa from anywhere in Canada, indeed from anywhere in North America or from somewhere across the world, you buy a ticket that takes you to Ottawa. You trust the airline to take you to airport closest to Ottawa. I venture to say that while my good friend's home is not well known throughout North America, it is well known in Canada. If someone from Texas, Florida, or California decides he or she wants to get to Hull, the individual goes to a travel agent. The person will get tickets that will take him or her to Ottawa. The people who know where Hull is buy the ticket and they get there. The changing of the name of Toronto International Airport to the Lester B. Pearson International Airport will not change the ticketing people get. Tickets will still say "YYW". Bagagage goes by that designation. It seems to me it is a horrible expense for what it does because people will still be going to Toronto International Airport.
I would suggest something to my colleague that he might find of interest. Not too long ago at the military portion of the Ottawa International Airport a new sign was put on the Air Movements Unit Building. It is an extremely attractive sign.
May 22, 1984

The letters are at least two feet high and are raised from the building. It is nicely illuminated at night. It is on a very attractive background. It reads, "The Nation's Capital", and it has the equivalent in French.
It seems to me that if a visitor purchased a ticket to Ottawa or Hull and upon arriving at the Ottawa International Airport saw an attractive sign reading "Nation's Capital" and equivalent in French, he or she would have some idea about this area of the country. If visitors could deplane here and not be required to walk through a boarded-in mine tunnel, such as is the case now, the situation would be improved. There could be some indication of the beauties of Ottawa and its attractions. There could be some indication that indeed it is the nation's capital, and some pride in that fact, rather than the rough framework through which passengers have had to walk during the past few years. That would give more impetus to what the Hon. Member for Hull wants.
Upon landing at the military portion of the airport, there are no inside walkways. People have to walk across approximately 100 yards through rain or snow, but the sign to which I referred earlier is attractive. If we could do that, it seems to me that we would enhance the nation's capital. Also we would enhance its airport and could show visitors the benefits and beauties awaiting them in this area. We could spell out in many ways how attractive the region is and, of course, we could accommodate my friend by including the area which the NCC has designated as the National Capital Region. We could spell out the beauties, not only the tulips in Ottawa but the various attractions in Hull. This would be the proper way to show that indeed this is the nation's capital.
To try and designate it as such will not change anything. If ticket agents anywhere in the world are asked the cost of travelling to the nation's capital, they would probably have no reply. However, if they are told that passengers want to travel to Ottawa, the situation is different. When passengers arrive in Ottawa it should be spelled out in large letters, for all to see, that indeed it is the nation's capital.
I commiserate with the Hon. Member. I understand what he is trying to do. I understand his home town loyalty and the effect of this Bill upon his constituents. However I could not support it and agree with it-"a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak at this time on Bill C-207. Down deep in my mind I wonder what is its purpose. However, first I should like to indicate that the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) is a very respected Member of the House and a great supporter of his community. With that in mind, I understand his interest in having the name of the Ottawa International Airport changed to the National Capital Regional Airport, or some such name. We must all promote our own communities.
In terms of this Bill my mind goes back to what happened in the case of the Toronto International Airport. It was first
Airports
known as the Malton International Airport. Then its name was changed to the Toronto International Airport, and now it is the Lester B. Pearson Airport. This has resulted in nothing but massive confusion. Regardless of how great a Canadian for whom the airport was named, people in that area do not relate to such names. However, they all relate to the Toronto International Airport. They did not relate to the name of Malton because at that time in our history airport traffic was not what it is today. They have become accustomed to calling it the Toronto International Airport.
I cannot see any purpose being served in changing the name of the Ottawa International Airport, especially if I remember the history of the Toronto International Airport. If we talk to people visiting from anywhere outside or inside Canada they do not understand us when we refer to the Lester B. Pearson Airport in Toronto. The situation in Ottawa would be compounded if the name of its airport were changed.
Governments have added too much to disorientation in terms of the history of Canada, the early pioneers and the original purposes of naming towns, airports, cities or whatever. History will not treat us very kindly as we go down the road. This has been a government of change. I suppose this is just another one of its suggestions. It changed the flag. That has been accepted now, but it took years. Perhaps it has not been accepted by everyone. It changed Dominion Day to Canada Day. Now it is trying to project its wishes upon places, institutions and locations.
I certainly know that in the area of the Province of Ontario from which I come the name Lester B. Pearson Airport will never be accepted. It adds to the confusion within the community and its people. I cannot see the necessity for encouraging further change such as that suggested in Bill C-207. I honestly believe that the Hon. Member's intentions are all well and good for his community. From what I heard in this debate, I am very convinced of that fact.
I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mrs. Cote) indicate that she could not support the Bill. I thought she would have supported it, but perhaps she was expressing the wishes of her Minister. We have to be realistic about this and forget about our local fancies. We should speak more internationally of our country and forget about trying to christen an airport with a name which means nothing to the people living in the community around it. Name changes could take place for every international airport in the country. I do not know where it would end.
This is a good point at which to retain the name of Ottawa International Airport. It is up to Hon. Members, regardless of their Party, to be proud of the national capital. It is a great region. We are all very proud of the National Capital Region.
I take great pleasure in showing it to many people, especially American tourists. They remark on how clean the City of Ottawa is, as well as on its beauty. We can all expound its virtues. Certainly the Hon. Member's side of the river is very picturesque. I enjoy going over there. The City of Hull has improved over the years. It has many fine buildings which can be seen from both sides of the river.

May 22, 1984
Adjournment Debate
There are other significant contributions that could be made to enhance the Gatineau and other areas of the community, but we do not have to destroy the traditional name which has probably accompanied the airport for some time. I am not only referring to this part of our great country. We must remember that we have a tradition of names and history. Regardless of whether it is Newfoundland, the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario or whatever it may be, we should think-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allowed for the consideration of Private Members' Business has come to an end.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to follow up on a question asked of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about the timing of legislation to end inequality for native women, or repeal of Section 12(l)(b) of the Indian Act and the reinstatement of native women and their children who lost their status.
I am very concerned about the complacency with which the Prime Minister regarded the question. He said that if by chance we could not pass the legislation, the Charter of Rights would still hold. I wonder about the chance to which he is referring. Does he know something we do not know? Will the Conservatives hold back the legislation? It is very clear that members of the NDP want this legislation passed. We would give it priority and we would agree that it be passed quickly.
When we look at the timing, we can see that many years have been spent discussing this matter. The Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada recommended in 1970 that Section 12(l)(b) of the Indian Act be repealed. There was agitation throughout the 1960s on this matter, and the discrimination itself goes back to the latter part of the last century.
After the Royal Commission report some cases went to court. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Canada, with its lack of wisdom, lack of justice and lack of charity, decided in 1972 that there was no inequality for women and that the Bill of Rights did not hold in the case of Laval and Bedard. Thus, since 1972 it has been imperative to have legislation to change this inequality for women, as the courts would not change it.
In 1975 consultation with Indian groups began in earnest. Some progress was made in the latter part of the decade.
Conservative members who were in government in 1979 said that they would leave the question with the Bands for six months so that the Bands might come up with a proposal, and that if the Bands did not come up with a proposal they would legislate unilaterally. Unfortunately for native women at least, the Conservative Government fell before that legislation was introduced. It is this kind of timing that worries people now. We are coming to the end of a Session and there could be an election before we reconvene after the summer. People are worried that we are again getting close but the legislation will not be brought in and passed.
In 1980, with a Liberal Government back in power, the Sandra Lovelace case was taken to the United Nations for violation of our international commitments to equality. Canada was condemned for this violation. In response, the Government indicated that it would bring in legislation. Many statements have been made to the effect that negotiated consensus would be desirable, but that if there was no such consensus there would be unilateral action. Still we wait year after year. Years have passed while these consultations have continued, and for some people the time will never be right. I do not think that is an excuse for our lack of action.
This discrimination came from a society in which all Canadian women were treated as non-citizens. Women did not have the right to vote and all Canadian women lost their citizenship on marriage to non-Canadians. That is the same kind of situation that now holds true for native women. However, with the strength of the women's movement and with women having the vote in Canada that situation was eventually challenged and Canadian women received the right to hold citizenship. Native women still do not have the same rights of citizenship and we are still fighting for that.
Native women tell us that being treated as second-class citizens makes it difficult for them. They become second-class citizens in terms of housing, welfare and jobs. Because native cultures respect the law, having a lower status in law means having a lower status in practicality.

Equality for women is a matter of justice. We should not seek to negotiate a consensus on this issue. It is not surprising, after a century of abuse and discrimination against women, that Band leaders generally do not recognize native women as their equals. As Parliamentarians, we are the cause of this problem, because we have passed legislation depriving native women of their status. As Parliamentarians, therefore, we must correct this injustice by repealing the discriminating provisions in the Indian Act and by taking strong positive action.
We should not wait for a consensus. We should not try to excuse our inaction by raising the issue of the Bands' democracy, for as long as native women are not reinstated in their status, there could be no democracy.
It is imperative that native women should be immediately reinstated to their full Indian status, that they may work
May 22, 1984

toward the development of democracy within the Bands. Without the participation of native women, this so-called democracy is an illusion.
Of course there will be problems. We have to admit that there will be problems with respect to re-integrating women, but I think those problems have been exaggerated. Many of the women are presently living on reserves. It is not a question of bringing in new people, they are there now. In Yukon and the Northwest Territories there are no reserves. It is a question of women living in their communities, and having a vote. If it is a community council, such as in Old Crow, for example, they have it already. But they are living at the edge of the community; they are not being fully integrated into it. They are there now. Very often they speak the language and they are committed to native culture. They would be valuable members of their bands and of their councils. Many of the problems that native people have with environmental pollution, land claims, and the very high over-representation of native people in our jails and prisons, are the problems which should be addressed. Failure to solve this question of equality indicates that people are not working on the problem. It is important for native men and women to work together to solve these and other problems.


Mr. Rene Gingras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) raised the question of the equality of Indian women under the Canadian Charter of Rights, and amendments to the Indian Act.
Hon. Members will recall the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) answered that the Charter would prevail over the Indian Act. It would therefore simply be a matter of waiting for Section 15(1) of the Charter to come into force, which in effect would supersede certain sections of the Act, such as Section 12(1)(6), which is at variance with the Constitution.
However, some discriminatory sections in the Act that are involved in the amendment process lay down the criteria for entitlement to Indian status. After April 17, 1985, Indian women will no longer lose their status under Section 12(1) (6). However, the sections of the Act dealing with the registration of children will have to be amended to provide for the registration of children of Indian women as well as of Indian men. Therefore, although equality is guaranteed to all women under Section 15(1) and Section 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights, it is imperative that the Indian Act be amended as soon as possible.
As the Prime Minister has also pointed out, the reinstatement of Indians raises problems. Hopefully, these problems will soon be resolved.
Adjournment Debate
In answer to the other question put by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, I would like to point out that 16 members of the Native Women's Association of Canada attended the Conference of the Assembly of First Nations over the weekend, which provided $10,000 to ensure the participation of the Association of Native Women. The Native Citizen's Directorate of the Secretary of State is ready to meet with the Executive Council of the Native Women's Association of Canada to discuss further funding requirements.


EMPLOYMENT (A) BRITISH COLUMBIA STATISTICS. (B) RAILWAY UPGRADING-BENEFITS FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, about a year ago this House passed a Bill that was supposed to create new employment opportunities for Canada, and particularly for the West. That Bill was the Crow legislation. The Government, during the course of the debate, promised enormous industrial benefits that would accrue to Canada as a result of that particular legislation. I recall estimates that as many as 400,000 jobs would be created if the House passed the Bill. A year has now passed. While the West is not impatient with the so-called results of the Bill, we are concerned with respect to the benefits that that legislation was supposed to create for Canada and that the West will get its fair share of those benefits.
We want to see some signal that the Government is going to pay proper attention to British Columbia, in particular-and that is my concern-when it sets out the parameters of the advantages which that Bill is supposed to provide for the west. That is why I asked the Minister some ten days ago how the Government was going to handle it specifically. I quote part of my question which is found in Hansard on May 11, 1984 at page 3639:
The Government promised that as a result of the Crow legislation there would be thousands of jobs created across Canada and literally millions, if not billions of dollars invested. Presumably those jobs would accrue to the areas which would be affected by the Crow legislation.
I then went on to ask the Minister how western Canada, particularly British Columbia, was going to benefit.
I am concerned, Sir, but not in a confrontational way. I really was not badgering the Minister. I simply wanted some information, because there seems to be a paucity of information since that legislation was passed. I understand there have been seminars conducted in Alberta. I believe there may have even been a seminar conducted in Vancouver, British Columbia. Nevertheless, there seems to be a real paucity of information going out to the companies which would supposedly benefit most from that particular legislation.
I am concerned, Sir, that not only subsidiaries of CPR, and companies which have a linkage with the Canadian National Railways, have the benefit of this legislation, because there are scores of small companies throughout British Columbia which

May 22, 1984
Adjournment Debate
are totally independent and which could benefit from this legislation. You will agree, Sir, that the small businesses are what create most of the employment. Since British Columbia and Alberta have the highest increases in unemployment in Canada since the recession hit, we are particularly concerned that if there is a promise for employment that there be a delivery system for that promise.
In this context, I think of all the cement companies which could be making railway ties or all the conduits. There are all kinds of ancillary benefits which ought to be coming to western Canada.
It took me somewhat by surprise, when I asked the Minister about this ten days ago in the House, that the first example he brought to my attention was in Sydney, Nova Scotia, and I quote from page 3639 of Hansard:
1 take into account the contract recently let by the CNR for new steel rails to Sysco in Sydney.
I have no objection, Mr. Speaker, to that at all. If there is any area of the country which needs employment, and that kind of a contract, it is Sydney, Nova Scotia. They do need that kind of work. What bothers me is not that it received the contract, but that when I posed the question to the Minister in the House he could not quickly or spontaneously think of an example where the west, and particularly British Columbia, was going to get any contracts, or had any contracts assigned to them as a result of the Crow legislation. Therefore, I am here expanding on my concern, not because I am badgering the Government, but with the hope that in the minutes which the Parliamentary Secretary has to answer my question she will be able to give me some specific information as to how companies in the Fraser Valley and throughout British Columbia can get access to those jobs which are supposed to be coming to our part of the country. How do we go about bidding for these jobs?
Second, I understand that there is a considerable pool of money set aside by the responsible department for the granting of moneys to companies who are at present not in a position to deliver the volume or, indeed, even the product which the railways will be looking for. With access to that grant money, there would be expansion possibilities for some of the smaller companies, and perhaps enough diversification would be possible within some of these companies so that they could provide some of the product which the railways will be needing in the several years ahead when this expansion is proceeded with as promised by the Government.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me in very clear terms how the Government is going to provide information to the companies so that they can bid on all of these contracts? Can she assure me that the bidding will be fair, and that the small companies will receive just as much access to those jobs and contracts as the large companies?
Finally, to what extent are the small companies going to get access to the grants in order that they might expand and have access to the contract possibilities available to the large companies? I am looking for that kind of answer. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be very fulsome in her reply.


Eva Lachance Côté: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), I would like to comment particularly on the employment situation in British Columbia.
Data from Statistics Canada show that the deseasonalized employment figure for British Columbia increased 5,000 or 0.4 per cent, between March and April, to 1,186,000. This is the first increase after three months of decline. The total increase for the country as a whole was 27,000 in April. The Minister is confident that business activity and employment in the province will go on recovering, thanks in particular to the resolution of current labour problems. Returning to the specific question of the changes to grain transportation in Western Canada and jobs that should accrue in the area, the Hon. Member referred to seminars held in various parts of Canada. True, some seminars were held on the matter of supply in the major Western cities. Because of discussions there, more companies now are included on the CNR and CPR lists of qualified bidders.
You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that I do not wish to give the list today; it is a fact, however, the Minister met with representatives of the Builders' Association of British Columbia and he later wrote CNR and CPR to invite them, along with their main contractors, to a seminar on supply in Kamloops on June 5 and 6, 1984. There will probably be more such seminars elsewhere in Western Canada.
Further, the Minister publicly stated at the Calgary seminar on railway equipment and facility renewal, to which the Hon. Member alluded, that Section 29(3) of the Act is very much in his mind. Under that Section, railways are required as far as possible to use goods and services from the area where they have capital investments. The Minister expects the CNR and CPR to change their purchasing policies and make sure especially that they award their building contracts to regional or local firms and obtain the supplies they need within the area where they are doing this upgrading work.
We also know that the Minister is working very closely with his colleague the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lumley) to set up the Western Transportation Industrial Development Program, in an effort to increase, develop and diversify the opportunities for the railways to purchase their supplies in Western Canada. Consultations in this regard are going on now with both the CNR and CPR. The results of these and other efforts should become more evident as soon as the railways start awarding contracts for this year and many years to come. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) and his colleagues are striving to ensure that all Western provinces derive greater benefits from the work being done in their area. But the corporations which would like to be considered as

May 22, 1984
suppliers to the railways, would also have to establish their expertise and reliability, as well as their ability to compete.


FISHERIES-ATLANTIC SALMON STOCK-PREVENTION OF POACHING
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to continue with a question I posed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) concerning the enforcement of the Atlantic salmon management plan which the Minister announced a short time ago in this House. The concern I am expressing is related to the management and enforcement of the plan throughout the regions it affects. I want to refer specifically to the New Brunswick region.
As you may know, Mr. Speaker, the announcement of the management plan does include a substantial curtailment of the salmon activities with reference to both commercial and recreational fishery within the Province of New Brunswick. Both of those fisheries are extremely supportive of any efforts on the part of the Government to manage the fishery in a responsible way. However, the fact of the matter is that there has been little or no funding made available to increase the enforcement of the salmon management plan. This is indeed of tremendous concern.
In the Atlantic region, Mr. Speaker, and particularly in New Brunswick and other areas, a large portion of the income of many individuals is dependent upon the salmon management from both the commercial and recreational fishery. It is extremely critical that these people are assured that the sacrifices which they are being asked to make by the Department of Fisheries and the Minister responsible for Fisheries will not be for nought. Indeed, the black market in salmon has flourished in Atlantic Canada for a good number of years because of declining stocks of salmonoid. This has been of tremendous concern to conservationists and the Department of Fisheries over the last number of months certainly, just by virtue of the program which the Minister has come out with.
I was extremely disappointed that the Minister did not suggest that there should be additional funding in the reinforcement areas of the law with reference to management of the program. As I mentioned before, salmon has always been a product which has been a boon to the black market in our region. We would like to see that these people are managed handsomely.
The people who live along many rivers in New Brunswick are affected very much by the Minister's announcement. Among these rivers are the Hammond, the Restigouche, the Miramichi, the Upsalquitch, the Nupisiquit, the Dungarvan, the Cannes, the Nauwigewauk, the Belisle, the Kennebecasisi the Washademoak, the Salmon and, of course, that king river, the Saint John River. There are many outfitters who are extremely concerned by the decision that has been brought down. There are many commercial fishermen who are concerned about the loss of livelihood they are going to experience
Adjournment Debate because this decision has been taken. There are scores of sports fishermen who are extremely concerned about the restrictions that are being forced upon them by the Government. It is not that they are not prepared to co-operate in a conservation program. It is also certainly not that I am not prepared to co-operate; nor is it that the Government is not prepared to co-operate. We recognize that salmon is an endangered species which should be protected.
However, all elements of society, including the commercial, sports, and native fishermen should be conscientious enough to participate in a meaningful and willing way in the conservation program. The native fishermen take a tremendous amount of fish and have been entitled to them since confederation. I think it is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that enforcement does become a very meaningful part of the program and that the sacrifices which these other people are being asked to make on behalf of the conservation program as put forth by the Government will not be solely for the exploitation or benefit of the black market which does exist in the salmon fishery.
When we talk about the salmon fishery in New Brunswick; the Atlantic area, and in Newfoundland where it is extremely substantial to the living of thousands of fishermen, we talk of an issue about which we should be terribly conscientious as legislators. We should ensure that the sacrifices we are being asked to make as Atlantic Canadians will not be thwarted by an illicit, illegitimate market that could develop. Certainly, the only way to monitor that situation and ensure that that does not take place is for the Government to recognize its responsibility for funding, to ensure that the program is adequately monitored and policed so that those who care to take the chance of violation are brought to the forefront of the law.


Eva Lachance Côté: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member's question, I want to say, first of all, that protecting the salmon is a very difficult and expensive task, since there are thousands of miles of distant waterways where salmon is easy to fish, and also because this is a very vulnerable fish. I shall refer, if I may, to the findings of the Task Force chaired by Dr. Barry Muir. Its report has been submitted to the Assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Scott Parsons, and has been distributed to all members of the Advisory Committee on Atlantic Salmon and was made available to the parties concerned, Members of Parliament and members of the press. The report stressed two undeniable facts: first, that stocks of Atlantic salmon, as my hon. friend mentioned earlier, are declining seriously, and second, that draconian measures must be taken immediately if we are to ensure the stable survival of this species. The 1984 Atlantic Salmon Management Plan, announced on April 6 of this year, was prepared as part of the requirement for serious conservation measures.

May 22, 1984
Adjournment Debate
The plan was designed to focus on conservation of a particularly important species. The female salmon produces many eggs, and must therefore be protected. To achieve this goal, the commercial fishing season for salmon in all zones will be delayed and shortened. Furthermore, sports fishermen will be allowed to keep grilse only. This measure will also help to reduce the number of salmon intercepted while going up waterways on the West Coast of Newfoundland and inland waterways.
In addition to these crucial aspects, the plan will deal with all other facets of the salmon fisheries, including enhancing stocks, negotiating with native peoples, accidental salmon catches, extending the marking system, federal-provincial cooperation, revising policies on the issuing of licences and fishing operations west of Greenland. The Department hopes that it will be able to solve the problem by enforcing all these protective measures. Departmental officers responsible for these measures are now examining a new plan and reviewing
legislative and regulatory requirements for implementing the plan.
Mr. Speaker, the Department has no intention of expanding its overall capacity for enforcement of legislation regulations. However, its officers have been ordered to emphasize salmon in their plan for enforcement of legislation and regulations. Now that enforcement has proved encouraging and successful with respect to other major fisheries, resources will be assigned so as to focus operations on salmon conservation. It is recognized that the effects of restrictions on salmon fishing could very well be nil, if poaching is allowed to continue without appropriate corrective action.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.30 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, May 23, 1984