1984-05-04

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, two position-three position John Turner, who is running for the leadership of the Grits, has stated that he is going to reduce the deficit by $ 15 billion, but he is having difficulty explaining how he plans to do this.
As a suggestion, if Mr. Turner could provide us with the formula he used when he was Finance Minister to create a deficit of $5 billion from a surplus of $700 million in a matter of three years, as well as how he managed to increase spending by 99.8 per cent and raise the cost of living 38.5 per cent, we could perhaps be on to the formula needed to reverse Grit uncontrolled spending.
Obviously the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has been unable to curtail this uncontrolled spending trend as government spending on a public accounts basis has increased a whopping 668 per cent. If Mr. Turner would only be so kind as to provide us with the formula, following the next election the Progressive Conservative Government could use the formula in reverse to end the sinking of this country into further debt.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, it is frustrating to be over 50 years of age for both men and women, when they are looking for work. They work the best years of their lives in an industry. As soon as things get tough and the demand for the product slackens, the first to be laid off are those over 50. To make matters worse, no other firm, or the federal Government, is interested in hiring women or men over 50.
The Government and some businesses say: "You cannot work long enough to build up a pension", or: "Sorry, we don't have any openings", and then confide that they want younger people. As a result of bankruptcies of businesses and firms closing their doors, they are made to feel unwanted.
"I have worked like a horse all my life", a man 56 years of age said to me, "and now I am treated like a dog." He is becoming bitter, and I do not blame him. He and thousands like him are not responsible for the recession. They hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) tell the House, day after day, about the millions of dollars that they are providing for the unemployed, and when they go to the employment offices, or to government offices, they are brushed off and told: "The course is full; come back in three months", or: "You are too old to learn a new trade; go on welfare."
I ask this Government when some of these millions it talks about are going to eke their way down to the level of the unemployed. When? I wish the Government would realize what these people who have worked all their lives are now going through. Reduced federal taxes and the elimination of red tape would be of some help. Then Canadians would invest their money and provide work in Canada instead of exporting our money and jobs.


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


FISHERIES
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, early this week I was on the lower North Shore where I met with fishermen from Blanc-Sablon and Kegaska, to find a way to settle the dispute between Mr. Garon and the fishermen about the installation of certain facilities on the middle and lower North Shore.
Mr. Speaker, considering the fact that Quebec is scarcely prepared to move on this issue, I would ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) to see to it that salting sheds and ice machines are installed on federal property, and to spend the $10 million where we can spend it at this time, in order to help these fishermen, who could be operational very soon.
Where the Province refuses to co-operate in various fishing villages, it will have only itself to blame for the consequences. At the present time, Mr. Garon is acting against the interests of fishermen on the middle and lower North Shore, and I feel, Mr. Speaker, that we must speak out against this behaviour.

May 4, 1984
The people, including the fishermen, are now being held hostage by the Province of Quebec.
The federal Government is still prepared to maintain the funding of $10 million for the middle and lower North Shore, but if we do not succeed in reaching an agreement with the Province of Quebec we will only be able to install the facilities in question where the federal Government owns the land.
Mr. Speaker, my point is that the money is still available, but if we cannot help fishermen where the land does not belong to the federal Government, Mr. Garon will have only himself and his government to blame.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak under Standing Order 21 regarding Riding Mountain National Park, the only national park in Manitoba. The Minister responsible for national parks is currently conducting a review of the Department's plans, and is upgrading its 1977 master plan into a management plan. The recent departmental newsletter indicated that there will be consultations in Step 2 and Step 5 of the revision process.
We have some real concern about the lack of public consultations in the past. This kind of public review is something which only happens once every five years or so, and we call upon the Minister to provide an opportunity for genuine consultation this time around.
My own office has a list of some 20 items of concern. For example, Grandview Council met with me again last week and made representations about having the Grandview-Rossbum Road opened up through the park. Church group licences within the park expire in 1985. It is important that these groups that work well with young people be included in the new management plan. The Dauphin Town Council has expressed real concern about the stability of the town's water supply. I could go on.
It is important that the Minister personally hear the concerns of the municipalities, of the residents of the area, and of concerned organizations. I have approached the Minister about coming to meet with the area municipalities and I am pleased that he has given agreement in principle to that proposal. I now urge him to come quickly to some decision on the date when he will be available.


HOUSING
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, the incompetence of the Government manifests itself no more profoundly than in the area of housing. The Government has failed to meet even the most reasonable expectations of Canadians in terms of government programs designed to provide affordable shelter.
The Government has failed completely to develop a social housing program. In fact it has become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, for even the average Canadian with a steady income to find shelter. The high cost of money, fluctuating interest rates, and the current increases in interest rates create new fears and anxieties for Canadians who are worrying about what to do when their mortgages come due.
What are the options, Sir? In 1979 we provided the option of mortgage deductibility programs. It is always interesting to hear members of the NDP berating the Government for failing to respond to a crisis in our country since they supported the Government and made sure that such an innovative program, which would have saved thousands of people from losing their homes, was not implemented.
There are other programs which are available. The Governments of other countries do much better. They look at housing as a social right and, in so doing, make sure that the subsidies or innovative programs that they implement are not designed to help the banks or mortgage companies but are designed to help average home owners.


EFFECT OF ORDER IN COUNCIL
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 21 because of the Government's misrepresentation of its intention last June 29 when it passed Bill C-95, an Act to provide for government-operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events, and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act.
In statements and replies in the House and in committee, the Government took pains to ensure that the legislation would not enable the Government to engage in a lottery. On that basis, and because of the clearly indicated importance of this legislation for the funding of the 1988 Olympic Games in Calgary, the House passed that legislation. What has been created on the basis of that legislation is not what was understood as having been within the powers of that legislation.
On December 7, 1982, before the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, the then responsible Minister said in reference to the 1979 agreement with the provinces:
We have chosen to respect that, and if we establish this sports pool we will continue to respect the agreement we have with the provinces and we will expect them to continue to do so also... because the agreement we have with the
May 4, 1984

provinces deals with the lottery field. Our legal opinion is that a sports pool is something very different.
The fact that the Government has chosen to change, by Order in Council, and in the dead of night, the sports pool legislation passed after lengthy debate in the House, underlines the urgent need for a full and public airing of this matter.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, when the Cassiar Packing Company went into receivership last summer, hundreds of shoreworkers, fishermen, and small businesses had their livelihood severely disrupted, if not completely eliminated. The banks, the few remaining conglomerates, and the Department of Fisheries have squeezed this industry dry and it is now time to turn the tide and bring vitality and employment back to the West Coast fishing industry.
The Minister of Fisheries has stated to me that his Department, in conjunction with the Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, is presently working on a proposal. It is a proposal to get the Cassiar fishing fleet back onto the grounds, to renew the gainful employment Cassiar shoreworkers once experienced, and to rejuvenate the financial future of the small businesses and the community services which depend on Cassiar producing at full steam.
I believe it is incumbent upon the Minister to reveal publicly his Government's intention to see the Cassiar operation in Prince Rupert and the Skeena slough open for the summer season. Too little has been done to date. For this operation to start up, details must be finalized and made public by the end of this month. My constituents want jobs, not welfare. The Government should not forget that over $600 million has gone to restructure the Quebec and East Coast fishing industries. How about a sense of fairness?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. His cabinet colleague, the Minister of Justice, is quoted as saying today that the first act he would take as Prime Minister would be to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. The Prime Minister has been very tolerant of the criticism of the proposals of his
Oral Questions
Government by the Liberal leadership candidates, but surely this is going too far. I must ask the Minister of Finance is this an example of cabinet solidarity? Is he prepared to stand there and have his whole monetary policy shredded by his cabinet colleagues? Or is he going to seek the resignation of the Minister of Justice at this time?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard the alleged statement by the Minister of Justice, but-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: If you do, what will you say?


Marc Lalonde: -I would like to repeat what I have said in the House, and outside the House, that the Government has full confidence in the Governor of the Bank of Canada.


Mr. Nielsen:: Not all the Government.


Marc Lalonde: We have given him full support. I have had requests from the opposition benches to take steps vis-a- vis the Governor, which I have always refused. The Governor and I work very closely together. I am happy to say that, indeed, we share the same views on the economic situation and the steps which are required to ensure that the economy is going to grow. Not only has the Governor my full confidence, he has the full confidence of the Government.


Pat Carney: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance may have full confidence in the Governor of the Bank of Canada, but clearly his own cabinet colleagues do not have confidence in the Minister of Finance and his monetary policy.


FINANCE
Pat Carney: The Minister of Finance is telling Canadians not to panic in view of the increases in interest rates which he himself admits are expected to follow the increase in the bank rate yesterday to an 18-month high. The Minister must know that, since he brought in his Budget, five-year mortgage rates are up 1.25 per cent and one-year mortgage rates are up 1.5 per cent. Since Canadians are still shell shocked, some of them lost their homes in the last cycle of rising interest rates, why does the Minister not introduce his mortgage protection Bill which he keeps promising? Why does he not bring it in at the earliest possible opportunity, so that Canadians can sleep nights without fear of losing their homes?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say two things with regard to the important point raised by the Hon. Member. First, I believe we have a duty as parliamentarians to avoid creating unnecessary fears amongst Canadians concerning the evolution of interest rates. I believe it is very irresponsible for parliamentarians to spread fear to

May 4, 1984
Oral Questions
the effect that interest rates might know the same kind of increases which happened in 1981 and 1982. There is no reason to believe this, and there are no serious analysts, either in the United States or in Canada, who share that particular view. Therefore, I believe we should, as parliamentarians, reassure Canadians that they have no reason to fear that we will know the kind of increases which we have known in 1981 and 1982.
Second, I am indeed very eager to introduce the Bill to which the Hon. Member has referred. I have asked the Department of Justice and the draftsmen to proceed with that Bill with the greatest possible speed. Now that we have concluded our consultations with the industry, I expect the Bill to be introduced by the end of May, and I am happy to hear that the Conservative Party is going to co-operate to make sure that this Bill is passed very fast so that Canadians can have the benefit of the protection ensured by the Bill.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We are always co-operative.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is the height of hypocrisy for the Minister to suggest that parliamentarians should be reassuring Canadians about monetary policy when his own Cabinet colleagues are calling for the resignation of the Governor of the Bank of Canada.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Public Works who is responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. He is aware that fear of interest rate increases keep many tenants awake nights since they know that higher financing costs will be reflected in their rents. We are aware that CMHC has studied-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has a concern about a second supplementary raising another subject with another Minister. If the Hon. Member is right on with her first subject-


Mr. McGrath:: She sure is. It was mentioned in the first question.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for St. John's East please be quiet for the moment? I am cautioning the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, interest rates apply to tenants as well as to mortgage holders. I am addressing my question to the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
My question is: since we are aware that CMHC has studied proposals for shelter payments for low income groups, in view
of the rise in interest rates, will the Minister commit to some form of protection for low income tenants-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is raising another subject with another Minister. The Hon. Member for Calgary West.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission. We know from that Commission's annual report that there was an increase of 967 civil servants earning $60,000 a year or more. That represents a 73.4 per cent increase. In a time of restraint, of six and five, and the laying off of civil servants, can the Minister tell us why he thinks it was a good idea for the Government to increase that category by 73.4 per cent?


An Hon. Member:: No one is answering.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously the Minister concerned failed to hear. Would the Hon. Member repeat his question?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the benches are a little thin over there, and now they are a little thick at the same time. To the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission. He will know that civil servants earning $60,000 a year or more are in the top paid category. Last year 967 more people were moved into that salary bracket, an increase of 73.4 per cent, an enormous increase. Can the Minister tell Members of this House and the Canadian people why, when restraint is indicated, when we have six and five, and we have lay-offs, the Government felt it necessary to increase that category of upper income fat cats by 73.4 per cent?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear why I did not respond immediately to my hon. friend's question. He was directing the question to the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission. That is the President of the Privy Council, not the President of the Treasury Board. When it comes to being thick, I think my hon. friend is about as broad as anyone on the other side of the House, and they are a pretty thick bunch over there.
To try to deal with my hon. friend's question, as far as I am aware, the requirements of the Public Service Compensation Restraint Act have been strictly followed and applied by the Government. My hon. friend has asked quite a detailed question. I will get him a detailed answer and get back to him as soon as possible.


PARTICIPATION OF WOMEN IN UPPER INCOME GROUPS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to find out that the President of the Privy Council is
May 4, 1984

responsible for the Public Service Commission. He is also the House Leader, and the thickness gets a little more binding.
Perhaps the President of the Privy Council would like to answer this question, if he is responsible for that Commission. In that report we also discovered that over 40 per cent of public service employees are female. We also found out that in 1983, 3.7 per cent of civil servants earning $60,000 or more a year were female. There was a drop from 1982 to 1983 in the number of upper paid civil servants who are female.
Can the Minister explain to the satisfaction of the House why the proportion of women earning these upper salaries is declining, when the Government claims its employment strategy for equal opportunity is working? Why is the percentage of females in the upper brackets declining?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to be helpful to my hon. friend, I will try to give him at least a preliminary answer. I would first like to point out a contradiction. In his first question he complained about an increase in the number of employees who are getting the higher salaries. In this question he is complaining because not enough people are getting the higher salaries.
With respect to the role of women in the upper categories, we want to expand opportunities for them and that is why, as part of the affirmative action program, last fall we announced a target to double the number of women in the senior executive category over the next several years. This is a matter which we want to improve. We are working to do that by way of a definite numerical objective which we have set out. My hon. friend has raised a concern which we share. We are working to deal with it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has had a supplementary. The Hon. Member for Skeena.


PROPORTION OF WOMEN LAID OFF
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council. It is with regard to the release of the Public Service Commission annual report. I am sure the President of the Privy Council is aware that women form only 40.6 per cent of the Public Service. As my friend pointed out, less than 4 per cent of those earning more than $60,000 are women, while 65.6 per cent of those earning $20,000 or less are women. In the past year 63.3 per cent of those laid off due to privatization and re-organization have been women. This is a 50 per cent increase in lay-offs of women since 1982. Would the Minister comment on that, in light of his Government's response many times in the House about wanting to pursue affirmative action for women? Does the fact that two-thirds of the lay-offs in the Public Service are of women constitute affirmative action?
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that, with regard to the lay-off situation, there is no deliberate effort to have it impact more severely on women than on men. If, due to operational requirements, certain workers are not required and that group is made up of more women than men, there will be the result my hon. friend mentions. However, I can assure my hon. friend that there is no intention to have our lay-off provisions more severely to women than to men.


NUMBER OF WOMEN EMPLOYED
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. She commented earlier this week with regard to the closure of the Office of Equal Opportunity for Women. It seems that the only person on the government benches who opposed that is the President of the Treasury Board, who answered my last question.
Does the Minister responsible for the Status of Women feel that the over-all increase by two-tenths of 1 per cent of women in the Public Service across Canada is good? This resulted in a change from 40.4 per cent in 1982 to 40.6 per cent last year. Does the Minister believe that demonstrates affirmative action, keeping in mind that that rate of increase means that women will be fairly represented in the Public Service, at least statistically, by the year 2004?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, of course I am not satisfied. However, I am satisfied that a change is taking place and that there are some shining lights in the report. I would point out to the Hon. Member that in the CAP program, which is the Career Assignment Program, for the first time women accounted for the majority of new participants in the two management courses. I think that is an indication of where we are going.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the Minister missed my first question which demonstrated that in almost every category women are on their way down. They are being laid off faster, and tending to conglomerate in the lower wage categories faster. Every possible negative statistical evaluation related to women is clearly demonstrated in this report.


APPLICATION OF COMPENSATION RESTRAINT PROGRAM
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question relates to six and five. As the Minister knows, 96 per cent of the jobs at over $60,000 are held by men, and the increase under six and five this year means that they will get a $3,000 increase, whereas for the 65.60 per cent of women in the Public Service earning less than 20,000 it will mean a maximum of only $1,000. This means that the Minister must agree that six and five discriminates against women in the Public Service, that two-thirds of the lay-offs last year affected women in the Public Service, and that the closure of

May 4, 1984
Oral Questions
the Office of Equal Opportunity discriminates against women as well, even though it was only able to increase the participation of women by two-tenths of one per cent. Perhaps the Minister could comment on six and five and how she feels about that kind of blatant discrimination against women in the Public Service.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member gives a very lengthy second supplementary which is hardly in the form of a question. However, if the Hon. Minister wishes to comment.
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that the Hon. Member has taken what he wants out of the report, highlighted the negative aspects, and has chosen to ignore the more positive aspects of the report, albeit they are slim. But there are some positive aspects in it.
With respect to six and five and discrimination, there is no doubt that more women are affected than men. However, as to deliberate discrimination, I would deny that. There were men who were affected as well as women.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. My question exemplifies the sense of frustration and injustice felt in Newfoundland today over the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to declare the Churchill Falls Water Rights Reversion Act to be ultra vires. Since the Churchill Falls power contract represents probably the greatest grievance in this country today and is a festering sore in Confederation, what steps does the Government of Canada intend to take to correct this great injustice to the people of Newfoundland?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Newfoundland plays a very hard game. Sometimes he goes the political road, and at other times the legal road, and most of the time both roads. When he loses, he blames the federal Government.
Be that as it may, the decision of the court was on constitutional grounds. My hon. friend knows that this is a provincial matter. His colleague from St. John's West was suggesting a mediation role by the Prime Minister. That is about all that can be done by the federal Government, unless the federal Government wants to be chastised by the Supreme Court for acting in an area which is not of its jurisdiction.
Mediation is not a bad idea, and I understand that in the past, Ministers of Energy, Mines and Resources have made suggestions that there could be a mediation, a conciliation, or even an arbitration for that matter. However, that necessitates the consent of the two parties.
For the time being I think we should let some days pass. I observed that the Premier and the Minister of Energy of Quebec immediately offered resumption of previous negotiations which apparently had made some progress. I read in the paper this morning that the Premier of Newfoundland was still hoping that there could be a negotiated solution to this matter.


James Aloysius McGrath: I would say to the Minister that the Government of Canada clearly has a responsibility here, given the fact that there is a separatist Government in Quebec and that it buys the power from Newfoundland for less than three mills and sells it to the Americans for 28 mills. That is $800 million for Quebec and $8 million for Newfoundland.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD ACT
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, while the National Energy Board has the authority to regulate the construction of new interprovincial power lines, it does not have the authority to regulate interprovincial electricity exchanges. Has the Government considered an amendment to the National Energy Board Act which would essentially extend the common carrier principle to electrical power lines? That is an area where the federal Government can act.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know the technical answer to that, if such an amendment were considered. Nevertheless, the gist of what I said still stands, namely that this is provincial jurisdiction. It is a dispute between two provincial Governments.
The Supreme Court decision made the implication that it was on constitutional grounds, not on social or economic grounds. I think many people will agree that there is an element of imbalance in the original contract, and I would think that the provincial Government of Quebec does agree to that, to a certain extent. That is my reading of the press on that subject.
Negotiations took place before. I read in the press that there was agreement that they were progressing. It seems to me that the provincial Government of Quebec is not obstinate on the subject. I think it is willing to compromise and willing to discuss the matter. It seems to me that, now that there is a certainty on the legal side, the provincial Governments of Newfoundland and Quebec should get together to negotiate a fair settlement.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary to the Hon. Member for York North, due to the importance of the subject.


FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER PIPELINES
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, the question that surely must occur to a number of people is why the federal Government is prepared to use its federal power to lay a pipeline that crosses from west to east under its jurisdiction and not at the same time permit the laying of electric lines
May 4, 1984

that would transmit power from Labrador, Newfoundland, into the United States through Quebec?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my friend seems to forget what the nature of the problem was. The nature of the problem was a contract that was signed in 1968, if my memory serves me well-


Miss MacDonald:: 1969.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In 1969. Thank you for the correction from the University of Kingston. The agreement was signed, and apparently no provision was made for escalation, which is somebody's fault. This is the basis on which discussion has taken place.
The Supreme Court seemed to be stating the old adage, "A contract is a contract is a contract", pacta sunt servanda, and they have applied that principle. Now the two parties can negotiate in the full knowledge of what the legality is of the matter.


FUTURE POWER LINE INQUIRY
John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, that may well apply to the past, but what I am asking the Acting Prime Minister with respect to the future is simply if it is not possible that the federal Government, using its federal power for a federal works, would permit the laying of a line now from a new source of power in Labrador for the benefit of Newfoundland, transporting that power across Quebec to the United States or elsewhere?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as Acting Minister of Energy I would like to remind the Hon. Member that Parliament enacted a piece of legislation authorizing organizations in one province-hydro in one province- to apply to the National Energy Board to build lines across other provinces to transmit electricity to third parties. That piece of legislation was passed in Parliament a couple of years ago. I invite my friend to go back to the statutes and read them.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but in his absence I will direct it to the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister who is taking questions. The West Region Tribal Council met with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Ottawa on March 29. They followed up their meeting with a letter on April 17. The Council was promised a reply within 15 days, in other words by April 13. I am wondering if the reason why a reply has not been forthcoming is that the Minister is spending all of his time in the Liberal leadership race? Will the Minis-
Oral Questions
ter be following up on the Council's request, which is very serious because they represent so many Indian reserves?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, the Minister is extremely keen on resolving this matter, as he indicated in the House yesterday. I am informed that a Treasury Board submission is being prepared, asking for funds in order to remedy the situation and, furthermore, that the Minister will be meeting with the band again on the eighteenth.


VALLEY RIVER INDIAN BAND-PROPOSAL TO PURCHASE BALLAST PIT
Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister who is answering for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Repeatedly in the House, and elsewhere, we have been raising the problem of purchasing a ballast pit for the Valley River Indian Band under the Native Land Claims Program. We have not received any kind of response to date. Would the Minister comment on whether this is forthcoming and whether this particular land claim will be satisfied so that this gravel pit, that is at the centre of an Indian reserve, will be given to the Valley River Indian Band?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I will convey the representations of the Hon. Member to the Minister for his consideration.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for CMHC and housing. As he knows, the federal Government relies entirely on the provinces to deliver its social housing program. In the Province of British Columbia that delivery system has broken down. There is no delivery of the social housing program, particularly in the mid-central and northern areas of the province. What discussions are under way with the Province of British Columbia, and perhaps with other provinces as well, with a view to regenerating new interest in the program and to improving it?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his interest; however, I might correct his statement slightly. It is not social housing which has run into difficulty. It is rural and native housing which, of course, is part of the general social housing program. Certain provinces, including the Hon. Member's own province, have opted out of this program which by law requires 25 per cent participation of provincial Governments.

May 4, 1984
Oral Questions
My hope is that we will be able to include a very minor amendment when we bring in the mortgage protection plan and, with the support of Hon. Members on both sides of the House, 1 think we should be able to solve the problem. I recognize that until and unless there is a minor change in the Housing Act, my hands are tied, and I regret that very much.


PROVINCIAL PARTICIPATION
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. I appreciate his concern, but it is quite obvious that the provinces are so strapped, mainly because of the burdens which have been imposed upon them by some other programs of the federal Government, that they simply cannot come up with the necessary funds to meet their part of the program.
Has it occurred to the Minister that perhaps we should return to what we did in earlier stages, namely, to deliver these programs directly without the participation of the provinces in this critical area of native and rural housing? With the increases in interest rates such as we are experiencing again, there is fear, anxiety, and despair in many areas of Canada which the Minister should at least attempt to correct.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept completely the premise of the Hon. Member's question. I do not accept that it is only the economic situation which has forced some provinces, one of which is among the most prosperous provinces in the country, to opt out of this program, to give notice that they did not want to continue participating at 25 per cent. Frankly, I am surprised that the Hon. Member's representations are not made also to his provincial capital.


Frank Oberle: They are.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, this morning my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board and is supplementary to a question I put to the Minister on Wednesday, May 2, which appears in Hansard on page 3327. It concerns the Pope's forthcoming visit to the National Capital and more particularly, the Mass that will be celebrated at the Equestrian Park in Nepean on September 20 at two o'clock in the afternoon.
Could the Minister inform the House, in connection with certain arrangements for federal public servants, and I am thinking more specifically of their hours of work on September 20, whether he now, as he promised last Wednesday, has
further information on arrangements for the day of the Pope's visit?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the Treasury Board Secretariat, public service unions, and the organizers of the papal visit. As a result, I am pleased to inform the House that the Treasury Board has approved arrangements under which employees, who will be absent from work as a result of circumstances arising from the papal visit, will be granted earned leave or time off, to be made up at a later date.
Specifically, the Treasury Board has approved this policy under which deputy heads are encouraged to approve the use of earned vacation, compensatory leave or lieu day credits, leave without pay, or time off with pay to be made up at a later date, when employees so request, provided appropriate arrangements are made to ensure that essential services are maintained.
I might add that detailed arrangements will be worked out within Departments in consultation with public service unions as local plans are made and their impact on local transit and transportation routes can be determined.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier for his special interest in this subject which is an important one for the entire city of Ottawa and for all federal employees.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Would he indicate who authorized the unpardonable depredations of the approaches to the Parliament Buildings, particularly the border of the parliamentary lawn which has been completely devastated, its trees and flowers uprooted, and its wall is now being demolished, at some cost, I might add, not only to the public purse but to traffic patterns on the Hill, as well as to the general aesthetics?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I will take the responsibility for it.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Roméo LeBlanc: I am afraid I cannot join with the Hon. Member in some of his more flowery rhetoric. Anyone recognizes that if improvements are to be made, if a wall in dangerous condition is to be repaired, there should be an attempt to perform two or three other jobs in a co-ordinated manner at the time the lawn is being excavated in the area of

the wall, so that portions of the operation do not have to be repeated.
I,	too, regret the inconvenience, although we have tried to keep it to an absolute minimum. I reassure Hon. Members that the Hill will be restored-and an historian is working on this very subject-to its proper appearance, in fact going back to the 1920s. Shrubs will be replaced. Some of the tress that were removed were diseased, so we decided that if we were to excavate the lawn we should try to do the complete job. Also I should inform Hon. Members that the work will be terminated rather quickly. I am sure that will go some way toward reassuring them.


COST OF SUMMER PROGRAM
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, there have been rumours that there is an upcoming special program and that this is in anticipation of it. If that is the case, would the Minister tell the House and the people of Canada the cost which is likely to be encountered, not only for the depredations which have already occurred but for any special programs of a public nature which may be organized to take place on the lawn later this summer?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the exact arithmetic in my head. I think the total cost of the program is in the area of $2 million. I might say to those Canadians who visit Parliament Hill that we will be presenting Son et Lumiere, a very well known technique of historical re-creation. This appears to be a rather wise investment of public funds.


Donald W. Munro: At this time?


Roméo LeBlanc: I might say also that there are those of us who think that the history of Canada is slightly wider than the one spectacle allowed on the parliamentary lawn, that is, the Changing of the Guard.


EXPORTATION OF LOGS FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for External Relations. Pacific Forest Products, a subsidiary of CP Enterprises, has closed its Victoria plywoods mill and laid off 130 workers. At the same time it is exporting an increasing number of logs. Even the Liberal Government should be able to understand that when Pacific Forest Products exports these logs, it is really exporting the jobs of these laid-off workers. Will the Government act in the interests of Canadian people and Canadian workers and refuse further permits for the export of raw logs? Will it undertake an aggressive sales campaign to open new markets for Canadian lumber in such places as North Africa, the Middle East, and China?
Oral Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, on the opening of new markets, I stand in good stead, having just returned from Algeria and Tunisia where there is a growing market for lumber. On the export of logs, I will have to refresh my memory. When I was Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce there were regulations and limitations on the export of logs. I would suggest that these measures still exist. I will find out exactly what is the state in the instance to which the Hon. Member referred.


EXPORT PERMIT CONDITIONS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister looks into it, he will find that the present provincial regulations are nothing more than a farce. I hope the Government looks at it and, if not the Government, at least some of the Liberal leadership candidates.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member ask his supplementary?


James Douglas Manly: My supplementary relates to the export permits. The Department has refused to give information about the details of these permits, saying it would undermine the competitive edge, and that these details are confidential. Considering the importance of forest manufacturing to the Canadian economy and the fact that these resources should give a competitive edge to Canadian workers, will he at least release the details of these log export permits so that the Canadian people will know the extent to which their jobs are being sold off by Pacific Forest and other forest companies?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my first answer obviously inferred that I was in agreement with the Hon. Member on the non-desirability of the export of raw products. Having said that, and having recalled that there was such legislation, my hon. friend will understand that I now have to look at the circumstances. I would like to look at the position of the provincial Government. It may well be that the provincial Government or some companies have asked for an exception in this matter. I will look into the details and answer as rapidly as I can.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for External Relations and Acting Prime Minister. Will he tell the House whether his Government intends to join the Organization of American States?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the question is prompted by a

May 4, 1984
Oral Questions
statement made a few days ago by the President of Mexico when he suggested that Canada should join. He will be in Canada in a few days and will have ample opportunity to make his case to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There has been a long debate on the subject. I remember when travelling in South America back in 1969 that the leaders of those countries were divided on the position Canada should take in respect to joining the Organization of American States. We had a thorough review of that debate recently. Cabinet has not yet made the final decision.


TIMING OF DECISION
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that the matter has been before Cabinet for three, four, or five months. How long will it have to stay there before the Government makes a decision one way or the other?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by the modesty of my hon. friend. Three or four months is a very short period. I thought he was going to say three or four years. In fact I would have increased that. It has been debated in Canada for many years. Canadians are very much divided on the subject. I suggest that even South Americans are divided on the subject. Therefore it is not surprising that the Government should have debated it for another three months.


FREE TRADING ZONES-STUDY INQUIRY
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for industry, trade and commerce. Have any studies been initiated to determine whether free trading zones would be an advantage to this country? If such a study has been instigated, or is currently under way, will he identify the areas being considered for the establishment of a free trade zone?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that such a question should be placed on the Order Paper. Where a Member seeks a level of detail, the Order Paper is proper for it. However, the Hon. Member may put a supplementary if he wants.


Robert Alfred Corbett: All I asked is if there has been a study initiated to determine whether a free trade zone would be an advantage to this country and, if so, where. I will go further. Is the Minister prepared to identify some funding to be made available for such a study to be implemented, to consider the feasibility of the Port of Saint John being established as a free trade zone?


Mr. Rod Blaker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, there is no difficulty in answering the Hon. Member. The matter of export free-trade
zones was brought into the last Throne Speech. Investigation and research have been done by the Department. There are at least two places in Canada which have made specific requests to be considered for the purpose of these export zones. There are two theories, what might be called and is referred to departmentally as the low road and the high road, the latter being the type you see in Miami in the United States. These are very extensive free-trade zones. The question also included whether they might be of interest to Canada. In that regard I will answer personally, not on behalf of the Government, that I think so.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. It is supplementary to the question of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier concerning time off for federal Government employees in Ottawa for the Pope's mass. Can the Minister state that the policy that he elaborated with respect to Ottawa can be applied to federal government employees in Edmonton on Monday, September 17, when the Pope's mass will occur at Namao, requiring considerable travelling time? Second, have any consultations been held with provincial Governments to ensure that provincial government employees can also receive time off to attend the Pope's mass in their area?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the policy I announced is designed to apply to federal public servants in all locations which His Holiness the Pope will visit. The policy is not limited to the National Capital region. With respect to provincial government employees, that is a matter for the provincial Governments to determine. I am sure that the special task force working on the papal visit will be or has already been in contact with provincial Governments on this matter.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, will the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether the Minister of Justice was speaking for the Government when he proposed to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, that question has already been answered by the Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


May 4, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: The question was asked earlier in the proceedings.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect, the question was asked. There is no obligation on the part of the Government to answer. The question was asked. If the Right Hon. Member has another question other than that one-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are not allowed to tell us what to ask.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question was asked previously today. It has certainly been asked now by the Right Hon. Member. The Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead, if it is another question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we will check the record.


MINISTER'S AUTHORITY
Charles Joseph Clark: Will the Acting Prime Minister tell us for whom the Minister of Justice, a senior Minister in this Government, was speaking when he proposed to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered the question, inferring that what the Minister of Finance said was good enough. The Minister of Finance said he did not know all the details of this announcement. My understanding is that it was uttered during a commercial, which obviously does not count.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Minister of Finance answered the question quite clearly by stating that the Government had full faith in the Governor of the Bank of Canada, that he personally had the best of relations and the best of understanding with the said gentleman.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead, and the question certainly has been asked.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER BE REQUIRED TO RESIGN
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, on this question which goes to the fundamental nature of parliamentary democracy in this country, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Prime Minister, for whom he is speaking today, to seek the resignation of the Minister of Justice for stating a disagreement with the Government of Canada on a matter of profound public policy dealing with the status of the Governor of the Bank of Canada? Do these Ministers operate with absolute impunity when they disagree with the policy of the Government of which they are members, or are they subject to any discipline at all? Are there any standards at all which they must meet? Will the Minister of Justice be required to resign?
Motions


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Prime Minister would want to look at the transcript of the statement to which my hon. friend has referred. My hon. friend, who tried so hard to bring some discipline to the Conservative Party, should be the first to understand the situation. A leadership campaign is going on.


Charles Joseph Clark: They are Cabinet Ministers.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Candidates must travel a very narrow road. I am expressing my own view when I say that, to my knowledge, the Prime Minister has been rather understanding of the situation. Again, the Prime Minister will be present on Monday and if the former Prime Minister would like to raise the question again, I am sure he will have the time to do so.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, May 3, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, I am pleased to be able to present in the House today in both official languages two publications from the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women; namely, a document entitled Juggling a Family and Responsibilities and a document entitled Love, Marriage and Money.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES POLICY AND PROGRAMS
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on motions. I think if you ask for consent, Mr. Speaker, you will find that there have been discussions and that there is consent to the following motion:
That the Members to serve on the part of this House on the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages Policy and Programs be Mr. Berger, Mr. 3418

May 4, 1984
Bockstael, Mr. Bosley, Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra), Mrs. Cote, Mr. Gauthier, Mr. Gimai'el, Mr. Gourd, Mr. Hawkes, Mr. Kilgour, Mr. Marceau, Ms. McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood), Mr. Nystrom, Mr. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River) and Mr. St. Germain;
That all reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages and the evidence adduced by the Special Joint Committee on Official Languages in the present Parliament be deemed to have been referred to the said committee; and That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to introduce the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the time for me to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 30 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: It is.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask leave to move this adjournment under Standing Order 30 for the sole reason that the necessity for this course of action arises from the clear evidence that a fraud has been perpetrated on the House through the misrepresentation of the Government last June 25 when it passed Bill C-95, an Act to provide for government-operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act. The fact that the Government has chosen to change, by Order in Council and in the dead of night, the sports pool legislation passed after lengthy debate in the House underlines the urgent need for a full and public airing of this important matter.
If you would allow me, Sir, I would prove that the Government started with the premise that the 1979 agreement to relinquish lotteries to the provinces should be reversed and that the federal Government should get back into the lottery business. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the subsequent Ministers of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport spoke before the committee. I do not know whether or not they intentionally lied but people in Edmonton would say that there has been a misrepresentation. People in Calgary are saying that the Bill
was not used for the purpose of the Calgary Olympics but was used for the purpose of breaking a 1979 agreement so that the Government may get into the lottery business again rather than conducting a sports pool.
I would like to mention as well a misrepresentation regarding advertising. If I can prove chronologically that this advertisement indicated that the introduction of sports-


Mr. Speaker:: I call to the attention of the Hon. Member that at this stage he is seeking leave to introduce a motion on a priority basis and his argument should be restricted to the procedural point.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I am saying that the urgency of this motion is that if we are to be governed by Order in Council, what would happen if a security Bill was passed in the House and then suddenly Mr. Finn and the Hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) changed it? What would happen if, after agreement to a particular Bill by the House of Commons, the Solicitor General felt there is not enough contained in that Bill so he would want to get Gordon Osbaldeston out of bed at two o'clock in the morning? What would happen if he would feel that because something within the Bill violates the Criminal Code, he would want to call Gordon Osbaldeston to put something extra in the Bill and govern by Order in Council?
The urgency of the matter is that if this can be done with this Bill, what about other Bills? I am not against the Olympics. If the Government says it wants to run a lottery, it should say so in the House. It should not-


John Leslie Evans: Order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: -I am not going to say lie.


Mr. Speaker:: At this point the Chair is concerned about what is debate. The Hon. Member has, under the provisions of Standing Order 30, requested permission to put a motion to adjourn the House. The argument is a procedural one at this point.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the Order in Council is in conflict with the legislation. I do not think I must elaborate any further than that. I believe there has been an injustice done in the House because of what the Minister and the subsequent Ministers of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport have perpetrated on the House of Commons and the Members when they surreptitiously went ahead and changed the entire legislation by Order in Council. Sir, I would like to leave the matter with you as first Commoner to decide what should happen.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, may I address the question of urgency of debate?


Mr. Speaker:: It is only the Hon. Member who is requesting permission at this point. Debate has not yet been conceded.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Urgency is the matter I wish to address.
May 4, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: According to the provisions, one Member can apply to the Chair and request permission and the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) is the only Member I propose to recognize at this stage. If the motion is granted, then it becomes a totally different matter.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say one more thing.


Mr. Speaker:: All right, I will hear final argument from the Hon. Member for Edmonton North.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, let me say that the urgency of this request stems from the fact that tickets are being offered for public sale in games of chance, the terms of which are subsequently and illegally different from the terms in the legislation passed by the House of Commons on June 29, 1983.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Edmonton North has given the Chair the usual notice of his intention to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 30. The issues related to the Act to provide for government operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events have quite obviously been a continuing concern for many Members of the House, but the Chair has reservations as to the urgency for debate and as to whether it is a proper subject to be debated under Standing Order 30.
The principle involved in this case is that a review of an existing law can only, under the rarest of circumstances, be regarded as an emergency provision under Standing Order 30.
On April 30, 1975 Speaker Jerome defined this principle when he said:
-that the emergency provisions pursuant to Standing Order 26 ought to be distinguished, or their use ought to be distinguished from those items which, in a regular legislative program of the House of Commons and regular legislative consideration, can come before the House by way of amendments to existing statutes, or in any case will come before it in other ways.
My predecessor, Madam Sauve, also ruled in the same way on similar applications on July 9, 1980 and on July 15, 1980.
It is clear to the Chair, therefore, that this subject does not meet the strict emergency provision of the Standing Order. Furthermore, the Hon. Member has other avenues for debate open to him. Next Thursday has been designated as an allotted day and the estimates for the current fiscal year are presently before the committees of the House.
For these, reasons, I must decline the Hon. Member's request.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What recourse do we have-


Mr. Speaker:: The Standing Order does not provide for recourse to the decision of the Speaker under the circumstances.
Order Paper Questions POINT OF ORDER


MR. CLARK (YELLOWHEAD)-NOTICE OF POSSIBLE POINT TO BE RAISED
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I simply rise to reserve my right to review the Hansard record of Question Period today and to perhaps have a point raised next week with regard to the rights of Members of the House in putting questions.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Member of course has always that right, and it will be scrupulously observed. If he wishes to raise it by way of a note to the Chair, the Right Hon. Member can be assured that every courtesy will be extended in the circumstances.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 551 to 556 inclusive, and No. 685.


Mr. Nowlan: 1.	Does Air Canada or any other airline pay any commission to Central Travel Service and/or to the Department of Supply and Services and, if so (a) what amount (b) is it less than the amount customarily paid to private travel agencies for like services and, if so, does the airline provide the Government with (i) a reduction in air fare equivalent to that commission customarily paid to private travel agents (ii) compensation in the form of tickets or reduced ticket prices for government employees or employees of the Central Travel Service which would be equivalent to commission and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Do employees of the Central Travel Service or of the Department of Supply and Services receive special privileges from the airlines and, if so, what are they and what is their monetary value?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. The airlines do not pay a commission to Central Travel Service. Air Canada and CPAir are charged a percentage of the net sales value for billing services. Such charges for the F/Y 1982-83 were $837,000. See reply to question No. 555 answered this day.
2.	No.


Mr. Nowlan: 1.	Did either the Central Travel Service or the Department of Supply and Services examine the reasons for privatization of employee travel by the Government of the United States and by some provinces?
2.	Does the Government discount the possibility of the privatization of its travel services and, if so, for what reason?

May 4, 1984
Order Paper Questions


Charles Lapointe: 1. Yes. 2. No.


Mr. Nowian: 1.	What are the names and titles of employees of the Central Travel Service and of the Department of Supply and Services who establish and/or approve air fares and what are their qualifications for these positions?
2.	What criteria are used in the selection of employee air travel options with respect to fares and what agency provides the data from which the selection is made?


Charles Lapointe: 1. Air fares are established and/or approved by the Canadian Transport Commission.
2. The onus is on individual departments to seek and consult with the CTS agents to obtain the best air fares to meet travellers' operational requirements.


Mr. Nowian: After tariff verification by an airline and when an overcharge is proven, is a credit paid by the airline to either the Central Travel Service or the Department of Supply and Services?


Charles Lapointe: Credits for any overcharge are paid by the airlines to DSS who in turn credits the Department that originated the travel.


Mr. Nowian: In 1983, what was the total (a) cost to each of the Department of Supply and Services and the Central Travel Service of operating and administering government employee travel (b) revenue received from airlines by the Department of Supply and Services?


Charles Lapointe: (a) DSS/CTS costs are inclusive to department level. For FY 82-83 these were $929,000.
(b) The revenue received by DSS from the airlines for operating a central billing system for airline travel for FY 82-83 was $837,000.


Mr. Nowian: In the past two years, was there an independent audit of the airline tickets purchased by the Central Travel Service and the Department of Supply and Services and, if so, by whom and what were its findings and, if not, for what
reason?


Charles Lapointe: The Auditor General's representative is presently conducting an independent, in-depth audit on travel in both the Central Travel Service/Department of Supply and Services and individual selected departments. There has been no other audit of the Central Travel Service by the Auditor General or by
any other audit organization external to the department during the past two years.
All airline tickets issued through the Central Travel Service system for government travel are audited daily by the Department of Supply and Services for accuracy of rates. In addition to this audit, there is an obligation upon the departments to verify all travel claims including the correctness of fares for the trips taken and any discrepancies are reported to DSS for recovery action.
Over the past two years up to January 1984, $207,175 has been recovered and credited to the individual departments that originated the travel.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): 1.	During the spring of 1983, did the Polar Continental Shelf Program of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources operate a camp called the CESAR Camp in the Arctic and, if so, on what dates?
2.	Was the camp abandoned and, if so (a) for what reason (b) on what dates?
3.	Did the Department of the Environment request a clean-up of the camp after it was abandoned?
4.	Did the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources conduct a search for the camp after it was abandoned and, if so, was it successful?
5.	Were empty fuel barrels left on the ice after the camp was abandoned and, if so (a) how many (b) by whom (c) for what reason?
6.	Were full fuel barrels left on the ice after the camp was abandoned and, if so (a) how many (b) what was their value (c) by whom (d) for what reason?
7.	What was the disposition of the buildings and other materials at the camp?
8.	In the opinion of the Government, do fuel tanks and other debris abandoned in the Arctic constitute a continuing source of environmental damage?
9.	Does the Government prosecute or penalize private companies which leave fuel tanks, fuel, buildings or debris on the site of an abandoned camp in the North and, if so, is any prosecution or penalty being (a) contemplated (b) pursued in relation to the CESAR Camp?


John Leslie Evans: I am informed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Department of the Environment as follows:
1.	Yes. March 13 to May 23, 1983.
2.	Yes. (a) The ice floe upon which the camp was located was breaking up rapidly. All personnel were safely evacuated, (b) May 23, 1983.
3.	No.
4.	Yes. No trace of the camp was found.
5.	Yes. (a) 605. (b) Camp management, (c) The ice floe upon which the camp was located was breaking up and aircraft operations to remove fuel barrels could not be completed.
6.	Yes. (a) 265-mostly aircraft fuel, (b) $84,325. (c) Camp management, (d) The ice floe upon which the camp was located was breaking up and aircraft operations to remove fuel barrels could not be completed.
7.	Four wooden frame buildings were left standing. Seven steel bed frames and six oil stoves were left on the ice due to lack of space on evacuating aircraft. All combustible materials were burned.
May 4, 1984

8.	Abandoned oil drums, fuel tanks, vehicles and other debris are a blight on the landscape in many populated and unpopulated areas of the Arctic, but, so long as they do not discharge or emit deleterious or toxic substances, they do not constitute a continuing source of environmental damage.
9.	Yes, where an offence has been committed. No prosecution or penalty is being (a) contemplated; (b) pursued in relation to the Camp CESAR.


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


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On a number of occasions I have asked the Parliamentary Secretary to inquire why there is such a time delay in answering question No. 2, which has been on the Order Paper since October, 1983. The question is:
1. Does the Minister of Transport have a private parking stall at the Winnipeg-


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Eton. Member, he has called attention to the number of the question. It is clearly identified. He does not have to repeat the question.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I was only reading the introductory question. We are interested in the cost and whether there is such a private parking stall. It is not a difficult question. I would appreciate it if the Parliamentary Secretary could make enquiries as to why there is a delay.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I placed a question on the Order Paper in November, 1981 in regard to Liberal Cabinet Ministers flying in Liberal workers to work in the last provincial election in Manitoba. There is no reason that I can think of why it would take three or four years to answer the question. I would appreciate it if the Parliamentary Secretary could make some inquiries.
I also placed starred questions on the Order Paper on April 10, Nos. 791 and 792, in regards to the advertising management group. There have been reports that the head of the advertising group is being paid $2,000 a day. I think I am entitled to know, as well as the Canadian public, whether that is correct and if, in fact, Mr. Zarry is receiving $2,000 a day.
As far as I know, Order Paper Questions are supposed to be answered within a period of something like two weeks, and it has been almost a month since those questions were placed on the Order Paper.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker there is no time limit for answering questions, as the Hon. Member should rightly know from reading Beauchesne's or the Standing Orders. I have requested information from the Department with regard to the questions which he has referred to me in the past, and I will do so again.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that there was no time period for answering questions. Could he explain to me what is
Order Paper Questions
the purpose of placing starred questions on the Order Paper if the Government does not have to answer them?


John Leslie Evans: They are answered verbally in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: This is an old matter which has been raised many times. I think it is clear that there is no automatic period of time required for the answering of questions.
The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question that I asked approximately two weeks ago. He has indicated that he would look into it. I am referring to question No. 759. I would like the answer, as it pertains to conjugal units at Canadian penitentiaries. I would like to raise the matter in the adjournment debate, but I require the information so that I can be sure that everything I intend to say is accurate.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I will do my very best to get the answer to the Hon. Member as quickly as possible.


Mrs. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary about Question No. 234 which is approaching its eight-year anniversary on the Order Paper. It was first placed on the Order Paper by my predecessor, the late Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville, on June 11, 1976. The question asks who have Air Canada passes. As a matter of fact, I raised this matter during Question Period last June, and I was assured then that the question would be answered soon. Would the Parliamentary Secretary give me an indication of when the question will be answered, or does the Government really have something to hide?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the Government has nothing to hide. The answer to that question will be forthcoming soon.


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am inspired by the interest shown on this side of the House in getting some facts out of the Government. I would like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that I have had on the Order Paper for a considerable period of time a series of questions with respect to each of the departments of government, asking each Minister the names and positions of their exempt staff and whether or not any of the exempt staff are receiving emoluments from an agency of the Crown or from a Crown corporation, aside from the amount specified for payment of exempt staff salaries. In some instances I have had some very quick and complete answers, but other departments seem to be either unwilling or unable to give me this very simple, straightforward information, which I am sure would involve about two minutes of their time. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he would simply make another inquiry with respect to this matter so that we can be satisfied that there is no impropriety with respect to the payment of Ministers' exempt staff.

May 4, 1984
Financial Administration Act Mr. Evans: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 1, 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.
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-24. It is called an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act, but the burden of my argument will be that it should be more accurately called a Bill to erode further Parliament's existing very modest control over 183 federal Crown corporations and subsidiaries.
Why do I say that? First, I point out that the Bill has 134 pages. I put it to you, Sir, that if the Customs Act, which we were discussing a few days ago, was difficult for anyone to read, including lawyers, this one is even more so.
The Bill, as drafted, is basically enabling legislation. It gives wide regulation-making powers rather than specifying clearly and in detail how the mechanism of control, direction and accountability are going to work. Without seeing those regulations-I point out that the Government has provided no regulations to date nor given any indication it is prepared to do so-it is impossible to know precisely what the Government intends with this Bill. For example, C-I and C-II corporations are required to submit corporate plans, but the form and content of those plans is left to regulations and not specified. Operating in capital budgets are required from C-I and C-II corporations, but the Bill authorizes the Treasury Board, by regulation, to exempt any corporation or group of corporations from the requirement. In the Government's quest for flexibility, and due to the haste with which the Bill was prepared, the legislation represents a regime of excessive administrative discretion.
Second, on the vital question of ministerial responsibility, I cannot in passing help but note that earlier, Sir, the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) made the comment about firing the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Pepin) told us, in effect, that that was not a question of ministerial responsibility, that it was done during a commercial break. So I ask what concept of ministerial
responsibility do Hon. Members opposite accept? Bill C-24 leaves the Minister as the de jure shareholder, but requires Cabinet to approve most major initiatives such as the appointment of directors, auditors, chairman and chief executive officers and the approval of operating and capital budgets, corporate plans and by-laws. In short, Bill C-24 continues the current situation where the Minister is nominally responsible but Cabinet exercises the burden of the shareholders' powers. In being accountable to many, Crown corporations will, in my view, continue to be responsible to no one.
Third, again on the important question of boards of directors, the Bill, as you will know, Mr. Speaker, proposes that the duties and responsibilities of directors under the Canada Business Corporations Act apply mutatis mutandis-if I may be forgiven a bit of Latin-to directors of Crown corporations. Bill C-24 goes into no detail on how the duties or responsibilities would apply in specific instances. And is that not the important matter in terms of practical experience?
More importantly, Bill C-24 seriously erodes the practical powers and prerogatives of directors and undermines the attempt to upgrade their duties and responsibilities. In the private sector, the essential prerogative of a board is to monitor the chief executive officer's stewardship of the corporation, to hire or fire him and set his or her remuneration. Under Bill C-24 all these functions are exercised by Cabinet. Cabinet appoints the chairman and chief executive officer and sets their remuneration, appoints the auditor, approves, varies or rescinds by-laws, and may direct a board to approve a by-law. In addition, the chief executive officer, who is generally not the chairman of the board, is required to advise the Government of any significant variations in actual performance from approved corporate plans, budgets and the like, giving the reasons.
Fourth, again on the important question of the proliferation of new Crown corporations, on the surface Bill C-24 takes some positive steps to avert the unnecessary proliferation of Crown corporations. It appears that in future the creation of a Crown corporation will require parliamentary approval via a special Act. There are major loopholes, however, and I will list four of them. First, the parliamentary approval process applies only to parent corporations, not to subsidiaries. It has been through subsidiaries, you will know, Mr. Speaker, that the greatest proliferation has occurred.
Second, the juxtaposition of Section 100 with Section 155 appears to turn the prohibition on its head by allowing parent corporations to be set up under the CBCA with only Cabinet approval and a motion in Parliament.
Third, the Government will still be able to incorporate parent Crown corporations where an existing Act of Parliament allows it to do so. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, there are a sufficient number of such Acts now in existence to satisfy most of the need for new Crown corporations.
Fourth, Bill C-24 could be interpreted, I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that Ministers, as representatives of the
May 4, 1984

Crown, many not be bound by Bill C-24's prohibition on the creation of parent corporations.
More generally with respect to the question of proliferation, the restrictions placed on debate of any special Act, which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is 30 days in committee and seven hours of continuous debate in the House, are too severe, in my opinion. Placing any such restrictions is, in any event, contrary to a fundamental principle that one Parliament does not bind, by legislation, the internal workings of a future Parliament.


Donald W. Munro: Hear, hear!


David Kilgour: The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) is very perceptive, Mr. Speaker. In this respect, therefore, Bill C-24 represents a significant and dangerous precedent.
Fifth, on the scope of coverage of Bill C-24, it simply does not cover many of the major structural problems relating to Crown corporations. Bill C-24 is silent on matters of internal government organization; silent on the privileges and immunities of Crown corporations, for example, immunity from the Combine Investigation Act; silent on public servants on boards of Crown corporations; silent on the extent of the Government of Canada accounting entity; and silent on the creation of parliamentary oversight committees for Crown corporations. In addition, Bill C-24 covers only wholly-owned corporations. It does not apply to the more than 100 mixed and joint enterprises. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I make the point that the Bill is not at all in substance what it purports to be in form.
I have a few other observations to make in the time still available to me, Sir. I would like to pay tribute to the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson) and the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) who have done so much work on this important Bill. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary South, has pointed out-he is the chairman as you perhaps know, Mr. Speaker, of our own party task force on Crown corporations-virtually every section of substance has attached to it a regulation making the power which it purports to define subject to a subsequent regulation. The question put by the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) earlier is just, I suppose, a prime example of what I am talking about.
The example which my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary South, used is that Section 100 appears to say that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) must approve the terms, conditions and timing of any and all borrowing by a Crown corporation. Then, Mr. Speaker, Subsection 135(4) authorizes the Governor in Council by regulation to "exempt a specified Crown corporation or a Crown corporation of a specified class from the application of the section". In other words, as my colleague has pointed out, the Bill is "a pig in a poke". It looks good to people who do not read it. The title is attractive. Some people have been fooled by it. However, the Bill, as I said at the beginning, really should be entitled "An Act to erode further Parliaments' existing very modest control over 183 federal Crown corporations and subsidiaries".
Financial Administration Act


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, may I thank you for recognizing me to speak on Bill C-24. Let me first state that the subject of Crown corporations and their control is not new to me. As a provincial minister for a number of years, I had the opportunity to create some Crown corporations. Perhaps the most noteworthy one was the Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation. I want to say that the administration, regulation and management of Crown corporations is not an easy or simple task. It is an awesome responsibility which is often thrust on ministers of the Crown who are simply not trained or equipped to handle the complexity of policy, direction or formulations within these complex conglomerates. In most cases it is not laws or even regulations which govern these giant public monopolies. It is essentially inertia, established practices, and most of the time a very powerful handful of very skilled top civil servants.
To my knowledge there now exist somewhere around 400 federal Crown corporations. The federal Government now taxes and recycles some 22 per cent of the entire Gross National Product of this nation. Much of this tax take is used up and recycled through public sector Crown corporations. All of these Crown corporations are supposedly responsible to Parliament for their financial administration, as well as their public relations and economic, social and structural accountability. Just how can Parliament, with some 282 Members, possibly keep a watchful eye on these 400 monolithic complexes? Unless some Members of Parliament, or even Senators, are placed in the front lines of policy and administrative decision-making in the Crown corporations, Parliament can only deal superficially with the results of maladministration, debilitative policy, innovation and choking inertia within the upper structural levels of these Crown corporations.
The only solution, Mr. Speaker, is to place elected Members or Senators from Parliament in the board rooms of these Crown corporations, so that they can report on and provide balance to the decision making at the very top. I have done this provincially and I can tell you it works. A new and needed dimension is added to the board room when one or more elected Members are present. Reporting to Parliament or even the Minister becomes instant rather than delayed. That is why I have on the Order Paper a Private Member's Bill to place elected House of Commons Members or Senators on the board of directors of federal Crown corporations. Senators could, and should, be used extensively as watchdogs in this regard. It would give a lot of them something to do. Surely if Senators are permitted to sit on the board of directors of private corporations, they should also have access to seats on the board of directors of federal public corporations.
The Hon. Minister, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray), in his report New Legislative Proposals for the Control and Accountability of Crown Corporations, states that the Government will be responsible for the major strategic decisions of Crown corporations and must therefore be in a position to review their plans and requirements. The Bill would give the Government the authority to require that the neces-

May 4, 1984
Financial Administration Act
sary information be supplied. Does that means to say that in the past this authority was not there? Such information is always after the fact, voluminous, and often impossible to interpret sensibly by a poor inexperienced, untrained and overworked Minister. This is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. The Crown corporation hierarchy become the dictators of policy, direction and even accountability to the Minister. This poor overworked Minister then comes before a parliamentary committee trying to protect what he does not really comprehend.
Then the report says that responsibility for the appointment of the board of directors of parent Crown corporations will rest exclusively with the Government. It will also appoint the chairmen of boards and the chief executive officers. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that Parliament itself should have the responsibility of selecting Members for the boards of directors of a selected number of major Crown corporations. Indeed, I believe that the Senate should have the power, the duty and responsibility to place a limited number of Senators on the board of directors of most of the major Crown corporations. Preferably one Senator from the Government side and one from the official Opposition should sit on the boards of directors of a few of these major Crown corporations. Parliament would be much better informed. But the Government appoints these Members generally to protect its interests and its political backside.
Just what would be wrong with appointing a Government Member and an Opposition Member as watchdogs to some of these boards? So what if there is frequent controversy over regulation and policy decisions because there is two-Party Member or Senator representation on some of these boards? Would this not create greater accountability and somewhat greater caution at the board level of these public Crown corporations? Of course it would. Maybe then the rate of growth of Government could truly be reduced, at least to below the rate of growth of the GNP.
There is basically no more vital matter than limiting growth of the government sector, which in my view will exceed this year 50 per cent of the GNP. To control the growth of Government, Parliamentarians must control the growth of public sector Crown corporations. What does the President of the Treasury Board say in his report on this legislation regarding the role of Parliament? Well, he wants to clarify that role and states:
Explicit parliamentary approval would be required for the establishment of any new parent Crown corporations, for their mandates, and for subsequent changes to their mandates.
This is great, but subsidiaries could and would be created willy-nilly by Government and Ministers. This hardly represents parliamentary control.
Then he says Parliament would continue to have authority to approve the financing of Crown corporations' activities where appropriations are required. What is meant is that governments would provide the control. Furthermore, capital can be accumulated through means other than annual parliamentary appropriations. Indeed, debt could be accumulated at resounding annual rates without parliamentary approval. Then
bail-out by Parliament becomes mandatory. Such is the case regarding Canadair, de Havilland and a few other Crown corporations.
He says parliamentary approval would be required for disposal of the ownership of a parent Crown corporation. Great! However, assets of the corporation can be disposed of in bits and dribbles as desired. What about disposal of subsidiaries? Can these be sold willy-nilly?
Then the Minister says Parliament has the right to expect a systematic flow of timely, pertinent information on the management of Crown corporations. That is wonderful. What alternative could the Minister put before Parliament except that Parliament should have access to information from these Crown corporations?
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is need-one minute left? I hardly got started, Mr. Speaker.


John Leslie Evans: It seems like an hour to us.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has made a good beginning, but it is hardly a beginning in the area of growth of government and Crown corporations. If the Minister tells us honestly and forthrightly that this is just the beginning in dealing with the control of growth in the management of these Crown corporations, then I would be prepared to support this Bill as an initial first step. However, I want to suggest that far more action is necessary in this area of government accountability to Parliament.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to say a few words on this vital and important Bill.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend my allotted time on Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act dealing with Crown corporations, talking about one very important issue which my colleagues might find a little esoteric and somewhat arcane, but it is fundamental to our view of this legislation. It is important because it demonstrates a huge and gaping flaw in Bill C-24. It is also important because the Government has shown characteristic sloppiness in handling this issue, as the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson) has repeatedly made clear.
The general issue relates to Clause 100 of Bill C-24, and in particular whether C-24 is binding on the Crown. As you know, Clause 100 restricts the incorporation or acquisition of new parent Crown corporations. If Bill C-24 is not binding on the Crown, as we on this side insist is the case, then Clause 100 leaves the Government with a huge loophole whereby it can continue to acquire or incorporate new Crown corporations with no scrutiny or control by Parliament.
Hon. Members will remember that that was the way the CDIC was acquired in 1982. Since then we have had the incredible problems with Canadair, de Havilland and the other Crown corporations. This is the way that Loto Canada was incorporated in 1975. The only time we hear of Loto Canada is
May 4, 1984

when it is in dispute with the provinces and the courts. This is the way that VIA Rail was acquired in 1978. Subsequently there have been shut-downs and changes in VIA Rail which drastically hurt western Canadians. There are other examples of this technique. It seems that the only time the Government is willing to go to Parliament on behalf of Crown corporations is for bail-out money, when it wants to write off $1 billion for Canadair or another $.5 billion for de Havilland, or throw away $125 million on Consolidated Computer Inc.
Section 16 of the Interpretation Act says, in effect, that a statute is binding on the Crown only if the statute expressly says it is binding on the Crown. This is very important when we consider the lessons of history. Hon. Members will recall that the Ontario and Supreme Courts recently held that the federal Combines Investigation Act did not bind the Crown in the form of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and Uranium Canada Incorporated in the so-called "Uranium Cartel" case, which is a national scandal. Why is this, Mr. Speaker? It is because the Combines Investigation Act does not say that it is binding on the Crown.
Our concern is that there is no clause in Bill C-24 which says that C-24 is binding on the Crown either. There was such a section, Clause 4, in Bill C-27 which was tabled by the Clark Government in 1979 relating to Crown corporations. There was a distinct move by the Clark administration to declare that these measures would be binding on the Crown.
What are the implications of this omission from this Bill? Simply put, Bill C-24, as now cast, does not remove the prerogative of the Crown to incorporate or acquire new Crown corporations by Order in Council as it has done in the past. Over the past decade this has been a means whereby the Government has intentionally and successfully evaded Parliament in the creation or acquisition of new Crown corporations.
How does this major loophole fit in with the Minister's statement that Bill C-24 would force all new Crown corporations to be created by, or pursuant to, an Act of Parliament? This is the claim which the Minister makes. However, it does not do that, Mr. Speaker. Was this an oversight? Was it a mistake? We think not. We think the "oversight" was intentional. We think the Government wants to keep this loophole. When this "oversight" was called to the attention of the Government, its response was "Oh, no, Bill C-24 is binding on the Crown. That was our intention". If it was the intention, Mr. Speaker, why does Bill C-24 not say so, as the Interpretation Act and the Supreme Court of Canada require?
Members opposite have told us that there are legal opinions that Bill C-24 is binding on the Crown. Where are these legal opinions? We have asked for them but have not seen one yet. Surely if there are legal opinions justifying the Government's actions, it should be prepared to table them. A senior Government official has stated that the head of the Department of Justice was of the view that Bill C-24 was binding on the Crown. Again, Mr. Speaker, we have asked for a copy or some verification of that opinion, but to no avail. Mr. Speaker, we do not believe that such an opinion exists. We do not believe that the Department of Justice feels that Bill C-24 is binding
Financial Administration Act
on the Crown. We suspect that the Department of Justice has never held this view and that the Government ignored the advice of the Department of Justice and then had the dishonesty to suggest that the Department of Justice supported the Government's position.
Government Members wonder why Members on this side of the House do not trust the Government's word. We challenge the Minister and the Government right now. If there is a legal opinion from the Department of Justice, or from anywhere else for that matter, that Bill C-24 is binding on the Crown, table that opinion here and now. If the Government wants Bill C-24 to be binding on the Crown, as it says it does, then move an amendment right now to include the necessary clause in Bill C-24. To do otherwise leaves this Bill hopelessly flawed and grossly deficient and leaves the Government and the Minister open to a legitimate charge of callous and gross misrepresentation. To fail to bring in this amendment will allow this huge, gaping loophole to continue and will allow the proliferation of Crown corporations to continue.
Aside from my specific concern, I would like to discuss some of our basic concerns regarding this Bill. As the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) has pointed out, it is basically a Bill which provides wide regulation-making powers rather than specifying details on control, direction and accountability. Without details, it is really impossible to know what the Government intends. For instance, some corporations are required to submit corporate plans, but the form and content of the plans are left to the regulations. This, of course, goes to the heart of our Party's position that Crown corporations should be accountable. Where there is a requirement for Crown corporations, and we agree that there is a requirement in some areas, they must be accountable to Parliament, and through Parliament to the public. These abusive powers and the secrecy which surrounds Crown corporations is a matter of direct concern to us.
Some of our specific concerns relate to the Minister's responsibility. This Bill leaves the Minister as de jure shareholder, but requires Cabinet to approve major initiatives such as appointments, approval of operating budgets and other details of running the Crown corporation. As my colleague from Capilano (Mr. Huntington) said, in being accountable to many, Crown corporations will continue to be accountable to no one.
Another of our specific concerns deals with directors. No details are provided on how the duties or responsibilities of directors will apply. More importantly, the Bill erodes the powers of a normal board of directors. In the private sector, the board usually monitors the performance of the chief executive officer. It sets the pay and can hire and fire based on performance. Under Bill C-24, this control is exercised by Cabinet. When one reviews the performance of Crown corporations and their boards of directors in the past, it is very clear how open to abuse and political patronage this system is. One need only think of the board of directors of Canadair to understand my point.

May 4, 1984
Financial Administration Act
Another of our concerns deals with the audit. This Bill gives considerable scope to the Auditor General. It does clarify the relationship between the Auditor General and the private sector auditors of Crown corporations. This has historically been a matter of concern for the Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), particularly in his role as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. However, we do not believe that the way in which this Bill deals with this issue is comprehensive.
I could deal, Mr. Speaker, with our concerns about the proliferation. As I have said, this Bill will continue to allow the Government to create new corporations by Order in Council. I could deal with the scope of the coverage. I could deal with many of our concerns about this Bill. However, you have indicated to me that my time has expired and I thank you.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, today we are debating once again Bill C-24, the Crown corporations Bill. The purpose of a second reading stage debate in our parliamentary lexicon is to determine whether or not the principles embodied in a Bill are worthy of the support of the people who represent the electors in this country in the Parliament of Canada.
Before any parliamentarian should support a piece of legislation, I believe he should have a sense of clarity in his mind as to whether there is a need for a particular piece of legislation. In that respect, I thought it might be instructive to review briefly for the House one particular Crown corporation which is close to the hearts and minds of those of us who live in the City of Calgary, Alberta. Of course, it is a fairly new Crown corporation which came into being mid-way through the 1970s. That Crown corporation is called Petro-Canada. It has had many subsidiaries that have grown like Topsy since it was initially formed.
Has that Crown corporation created a problem? I had never run for public office and was not a member of the Chamber when Petro-Canada was formed. I was merely a member of the community. I am sure Hon. Members will recognize that the oil and gas industry is important to the City of Calgary because it is a major employer and a prime source of economic health to that community. We have also discovered recently that it can be a major source of economic disaster.
Back in the 1970s Petro-Canada was established from funding by the Government of Canada through the Parliament of Canada. The first thing that corporation did was to hire employees from the marketplace. It was willing to pay 30 per cent to 40 per cent more than the marketplace was paying people at that time. This meant that it immediately distorted the marketplace and created, in effect, runaway inflation in salaries. In turn, this affected all of those companies that were previously in existence. The multinational and large corporations were able to compete because of the residual economic power they had, but it created enormous difficulties for small Canadian operators. That was the first effect of this Crown corporation.
Being a Crown corporation, it was subject to the laws of Parliament and the control of Cabinet. It operated in an industry that characteristically was mainly composed of what I would call peculiar people. I suggest that peculiar people are needed to meet the aspirations of such an industry. What we have in terms of the engineers and geologists who guide us in exploration work is a group of people who go to university for many years and obtain many years of experience, are willing to sit in the bush in temperatures of 30 and 40 degrees below zero for many days. They do this to help the country achieve self-sufficiency in oil and gas. I think that is peculiar. But those peculiar people are extremely skilled and very independent. They are special people in this country who are out in the field having to make life and death decisions instantly. They are responsible for millions of dollars of shareholders' money in the drilling of those wells. They have a particular temperament and philosophy and are willing to work 24 hours a day.
All of those are characteristics that do not hold well for employment by the Government in the bureaucracy. Nevertheless, the Liberal Government of the day decided to form that Crown corporation. It is now 1984. What do Calgarians see when they look at the Calgary skyline? They see the tallest building in town which has a red stone exterior. That tallest building is the PetroCan tower. It is a Crown corporation tower.
What does one find when one enters the front doors of that building? One finds that floor after floor of that immense tower are closed. One only sees emptiness because no one is working there.


Mr. Thacker:: Where did they get that stone?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Where did they get that stone, I am asked. It did not come from Canada. It was quarried in Norway, polished in Italy and placed on the exterior of a building in Calgary-primarily an empty building.
If one walks across the street into another building which has existed for some time, one sees that it is entirely empty. This building was leased by Petro-Canada and it is still paying rent for it today. There is no one in the building, yet the taxpayers of this country are paying for it every month, the result of a long-term lease.
Why did the Government of Canada buy service stations? Were those service stations in trouble? Was it a means of creating more employment? I do not think so.
The Government of Canada, through Petro-Canada, constructed a building which is now half empty. Furthermore, those employees who do occupy half of that building were transferred from buildings that are now empty and for which the Government is paying rent. As well, this is occurring in a city in which 25 per cent of the office space is vacant. Therefore one must ask why we have these two tallest buildings owned by the Government of Canada through its Crown corporation. I suggest that when one visits my City of Calgary to see this red building and walks through the front door, one is visually struck by waste.
May 4, 1984

Another example of waste by this Crown corporation concerns the long-term leases for drilling rigs which it entered into. Petro-Canada turned around and created another subsidiary Crown corporation to take those leases from the parent company since it could not use the rigs and had to pay for them. Petro-Canada now has a subsidiary Crown corporation that loses money while making Petro-Canada's bottom line look a little better.
In the five years that I have been here I have seen budgets introduced in this Chamber every year that have increased the cost for people to heat their homes and drive their cars. A tax has been placed on every gallon of gasoline and home heating oil solely for the purpose of enabling a Crown corporation to buy service stations.


David Kilgour: Which they are now selling.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It now says that it will sell some of those service stations. At the same time, the Liberal Government during the last two years has voted to cut money that was allocated to senior citizens and money that was allocated for the purpose of education and health. Furthermore, the Government has introduced budgets that were designed to increase the amount of money that it could give to Crown corporations. It has traded pensions for senior citizens for extra cash to enable executives in Petro-Canada to fly first-class and to build half empty buildings.
There is a need for a Crown corporation Bill. It is sad that the Bill currently before this Chamber will do nothing to restore parliamentary accountability and control over those corporations.
[Translation\


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, after looking at Bill C-24, I think the first two or three clauses alone would provide enough material for a speech of at least twenty minutes.
[English)
This Bill is supposed to cure a lot of things. However, what it has done is create greater confusion than hitherto. The first mistake was one of fundamental decision by the Cabinet, confusing the Financial Administration Act with the incorporation or the creation and control of Crown corporations. The two are disparate. The Financial Administration Act has existed since time immemorial. It has to do with certain practices of government. That is not the creation, maintenance
Financial Administration Act
and control of Crown corporations. The title is just a dog's breakfast-"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 total dog's breakfast. It is typical of this administration.
What do we do from here on in? Under Clause 3 we proceed to move by Order in Council. Orders in Council transferring the categories are tabled. They may be referred to a House committee for discussion and examination, and that is the end of it.
Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that after going to the trouble of referring an Order in Council made under Clause 3 of the Bill, under Subclause 2.2, an additional section thrown in there, the report which the committee may make cannot be debated. It states that within 15 days the Order in Council has to be tabled. Then it is referred to a committee. It states, and I quote:
(2) An order laid before a House of Parliament pursuant to subsection (1) stands referred, for a period of thirty sitting days commencing on the day on which the order is laid, to such committee of that House as may be designated or established by that House for the purpose.
If the Order in Council is referred to the committee and it produces a report on the Order, under Subclause (3) "no motion for concurrence in the report may be made in that House". What a gesture of fultility! The Order can be as false and full of trickery as that referred to by my colleague from Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski), SOR/84-350 dated May 1, 1984 dealing with lotteries and pools. That Order was made at eleven o'clock at night after getting the appropriate officials out and a quorum of three Ministers. That was to get away from the strictures of the Criminal Code. A fast shuffle of name was made. That should not be allowed.
We do refer Orders in Council to a joint committee of the House but that committee is very limited in its examination of such Orders in Council. It only examines whether there is power under the legislation to make an Order in Council, whether the Governor in Council subcommittee was properly constituted and that there is no retroactivity beyond that allowed in the legislation. That is all. Nothing can be said as to the content of the Order in Council, whether it is morally right, legally right or wrong.
The procedure that Australians follow is not open for us to follow. If we are speaking about Senate reform and the Senate serving a very useful purpose, we should speak about the Australian Senate. Orders in Council passed by the Government of Australia are submitted to the Senate for complete examination to determine whether those Orders in Council are within the power of the Government. Those things are done here in Canada. Further, however, the Australian Senate determines whether or not Orders in Council are right and whether or not they do an injustice to anyone. Frankly, if the

May 4, 1984
Financial Administration Act
Australian Senate does not like an Order in Council, it stands revoked. That is as it should be.
1 would say that within one year, Mr. Speaker, almost 50 per cent of government enactments could be passed by Order in Council. I came across an Order in Council the other day which was passed in 1981. This Order in Council affected the Immigration Appeal Board dealings with convention refugees. That Order in Council denied to Members of Parliament any access to written judgments unless the individual concerned or counsel for that individual had requested beforehand a written judgment with reasons. That is bureaucratic arrogance simply because Members of Parliament who inquire on behalf of constituents in immigration matters are acting as agents on behalf of those constituents just as much as any counsel acts as agent.
Bureaucrats who cannot stand outside examination of their actions deny Members of Parliament access to information by Orders in Council under some supposed right of privacy invented by the bureaucrats, interpreted by the bureaucrats and employed by the bureaucrats. The net result is that the ring of secrecy grows tighter all the time. Do not think, Mr. Speaker, that Members of Parliament can get that kind of information through the access to information legislation that has been passed. The people concerned only need say that, in their judgment, it would not be in the public interest to release the information that is sought. That is all there is to it.
1 would like to say right at the outset that the Bill is deficient, although many Members have shown it to be otherwise. For instance, certain schedules exist whereby Crown corporations may be moved from one column of a schedule to another column by Order in Council. There is no responsibility to Parliament. The Minister is the one to whom a Crown corporation shall be responsible.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would say that we should look at the proposal put forward by the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko). He proposes that our Government should emulate the governments of many European countries and of some provinces in Canada and place Members of the House or of the Senate on the boards of Crown corporations so that they can act as watchdogs as well as have access to specialized information regarding the operation of those Crown corporations. That would be a far superior addition to this Bill and would establish some form of control over these Crown corporations without having the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) and others be absolutely flummoxed by misleading reports from some Crown corporations which carry on business in some of Canada's major industries.
On that score, this is a bad Bill. This Bill should only serve as a white paper for reference to a committee so that that committee may see what can best be done with Crown corporations as we know them in Canada.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I would like to make some comments with regard to Bill C-24 which deals with the financial administration of Crown corporations. First I would like to talk about
some general aspects of Crown corporations per se and then I would like to look at some of the functions of Crown corporations. Third, I would like to underline some of the general failures of Crown corporations as we see them to be right now; and finally, I would like to offer some illustrations of some of the concerns expressed in my own riding regarding the operation of Crown corporations as they exist in Dauphin-Swan River.
First I want to say that Crown corporations in and of themselves need not be failures. Perhaps the Government has given Crown corporations a bad name because of its poor monitoring of Crown corporations. There has been a lack of accountability for Crown corporations at the creation stages, the developmental stages and any review stages further along the line. As has been outlined by a number of people today, what Crown corporations really need is a greater accountability to Parliament and a greater accountability to the public in general.
I do not think that anyone would quarrel with the fact that Crown corporations are a part of our national scene and, as the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) has stated, are a part of our entire economy. Crown corporations are viewed as being a part of our nation as a whole. I suppose it might be useful to contrast this situation with the one found in the United States simply to point out the uniqueness of Crown corporations in our national scene. Of the 100 largest corporations in Canada, ten are Crown corporations. Of the top 250 corporations in the United States, not one is a Crown corporation. Some of Canada's largest airlines, railways, radio and television networks and even one of the major oil companies are publicly owned, and of course, these companies have many subsidiaries as well.
Crown corporations cover a wide range of territory. In the area of transportation, there are Crown corporations such as the CNR, a company to which I will refer later in my comments. In the area of communications, there are Crown corporations such as the CBC and Canada Post. Later I wish to make some observations about the malfunctioning of Canada Post. In the area of energy there is Petro-Canada, and in the area of finance there is the Bank of Canada. Many people sometimes fail to realize that the Bank of Canada is in the same kettle of fish as the other Crown corporations because it has been perceived as an arm of government. Other Crown corporations in the financial area are the Federal Business Development Bank, the Farm Credit Corporation and Canada Mortgage and Housing. Of course, reference has already been made to Crown corporations in the industrial areas, such as Canadair and de Havilland. We find that Crown corporations exist in all areas of Canadian society.
It is important for us to recognize and underline the fact that it is not only the federal Government that is involved in Crown corporations but all governments, including provincial governments, regardless of political stripe, are involved. For instance, the Conservative Government of Ontario founded Ontario Hydro and the Saskatchewan Government is involved in the potash industry. As well, the Alberta Government has
May 4, 1984

shares in Pacific Western Airlines. All governments are involved in Crown corporations and they all face the same problem of accountability to which I referred at the outset of my speech.
It is not that governments do not know how to make Crown corporations more accountable but it is rather a problem of political will. Governments have not been willing to act in this area. However, as was mentioned by a previous speaker, there are some illustrations of the monitoring of Crown corporations at the provincial level. Whether we look at the British Columbia example or at the Saskatchewan example since 1946, we see that members of the Legislative Assemblies of those provinces have been involved in one way or another in monitoring or reviewing the work of Crown corporations. Some work has been done in that area.
I would like to underline at the outset that Crown corporations are a part of the national scene. Just because they have been given a bad name does not mean that they cannot be improved upon, but we would like to see a greater degree of accountability. I would like to suggest with regard to Crown corporations that even if we were to look at two functions which Crown corporations could serve, we would see that there is a place, if it is properly accountable, for Crown corporations to function in Canada, be it at the federal or provincial level. Of course, we do not usually refer to those agencies that are under the control of municipal governments as Crown corporations, but that is another area at which we could look.
Crown corporations could be vehicles of public policy. In other words, they could serve Canadians and fill the gaps within the system that a private enterprise may not meet. This has been recognized by some individuals. I would like to quote some remarks which were made by Pierre Franche, the President and Chief Executive Officer of VIA Rail. He said:
I believe Crown corporations often have a role to play where private enterprise does not want to play the role and the national interest demands it be played on private enterprise terms.
I have had conversations with the President, who was previously involved with the National Harbours Board, in trying to upgrade Churchill. Before he stepped into VIA Rail, I was pleased that he had a vision for VIA Rail. Unfortunately, at least in my riding, there has not been any kind of concrete evidence that his vision for areas that were served by VIA Rail is actually being realized. That is one of the functions which Crown corporations could serve.
The second type of function I would like to underline is the idea of providing some sort of economic direction, showing responsibility and generating some kind of economic climate wherein Crown corporations are working. There are different aspects which could be useful objectives for Crown corporations but, unfortunately, there has been a drastic failure in achieving the objectives generally, wherever we look. Public dissatisfaction with Crown corporations illustrates this on a national basis where the objectives or the functions are not
Financial Administration Act
being met. Enough has been said about Canadair and de Havilland that I do not have to emphasize this point.
Previous speakers have underlined some of the thorny problems which illustrate why the objectives have not been met on a national basis. A lot of this has occurred as a result of the lack of monitoring Crown corporations. The Government has allowed Crown corporations to stay away from many of their original functions. They have become autonomous entities unto themselves-going their own way, independent in their own actions without a'ccountability in any way, shape or form. It seems that a lot of board members and directors have lost their sense of accountability.
In conclusion, I would like to illustrate how Crown corporations have failed in specific areas, such as in my riding of Dauphin-Swan River. I could talk about the failure of the FCC, I could talk about the failure of the Federal Business Development Bank and others, but I would like to underline two failures in particular.
I would like to underline the failures of Canada Post and the failures of the Canadian National Railways. Canada Post, of course, has been one of the primary concerns for constituents in my area. I have received many many telephone calls, letters and petitions and I have had many conversations with regard to Canada Post's failure to provide service to the public, with regards to the withdrawal of service, and the negative impact that Canada Post has had on the local economy.
I see I am receiving a signal to conclude, Mr. Speaker. I would like to mention that the same thing has been true of the CNR. It has been making applications for the abandonment of rail lines, such as the one to Amaranth. In all of these, the Crown corporation has not acted in an accountable fashion. If there was more accountability, we might be able to make Crown corporations work in such a way that they would be of benefit to the people they are supposed to serve.
I appreciate the opportunity that I have had to share the concerns that we have in the riding of Dauphin-Swan River with regard to how Crown corporations are operating.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to make a few comments on Bill C-24 this afternoon. I would like to continue along the line on which my hon. friend from Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky) was speaking. He attempted to examine the function in our system of Crown corporations. He may have some doubt as to the function of Crown corporations and the system, although he should not have following his socialist philosophy, but there is no doubt that under the present circumstances the function of Crown corporations is to be the instrument of public policy. Whenever the Government wants to escape its responsibility and its accountability to the House of Commons and to the people it represents, it incorporates a Crown corporation and hides it away some place. So I have no problem understanding the function of Crown corporations. The problem is with the way that the system has grown like a cancer; it is totally out of control. The Government does not even know how many Crown corporations there are. The Canadian people do not

May 4, 1984
Financial Administration Act
know how many Crown corporations there are. They grow, are very dynamic and grow like a cancer.
I asked the Chairman of Petro-Canada in committee recently how many subsidiaries Petro-Canada had. He rattled off a few, but he was not sure as to the totality of the corporations in which it is involved, either wholly-owned or subsidiaries where it is a partner in joint ventures and so on. It is becoming a very dangerous situation. There is no way to make comparisons with any country in the western world in terms of their approach to this kind of exercise of government responsibility. There is no government responsibility, either in this Bill or in the existing structure. It is government irresponsibility.
My hon. friend from Dauphin says that the Government has given Crown corporations a bad name and that they do not have to be failures. I disagree with that statement. Crown corporations will always be failures because governments inherently-because it is the nature of the beast-cannot operate anything effectively and efficiently. It is against human nature to send bureaucrats and elected people out to run businesses. They are not good at it.
I would like to tell the House what Adam Smith said about corporate power. As we know, there are large corporations and so-called private corporations in Canada today that might as well be Crown corporations because they are so large, so cumbersome and so totally out of control that they not only influence public policy but dictate public policy. When they get into difficulty, of course, the first thing that they do is go to the bank and when the bank will not help them any more they come to the government and say "Bail us out". This happens all the time. There is no longer any accountability among big corporations.
Adam Smith told us 200 years ago, in speaking about corporate and public managers, that being the manager of other people's money rather than their own, it cannot be well respected that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which their partners in a private corporation watch over their own money. He said that negligence and profusion, therefore, must prevail more or less in the management of the affairs of a public company. That is what Adam Smith said 200 years ago and his words are just as relevant and true today. There is no way that an Ed Clark looking after a barrelful of money that does not have a bottom in it would be as vigilant and careful as someone else would be who was dealing with their own money. These corporate managers have their own language. It is an old subculture. It is the parallel structure of these people opposite who are completely out of control. They have their own language. Let me just quote-


John Leslie Evans: Adam Smith's comments apply to both private and public sector managers.


Frank Oberle: Would you just be quiet for a moment, please. You can talk later. You have not heard yourself think yet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Frank Oberle: Let me give a quotation from the annual report of one of these Crown corporations:
Your management directs a closely articulated international reinforcing inherently dynamic enterprise that responds well to the capabilities that are fundamental to the modern managerial methodology and systems.
Did you write it all down, Sir? Let me just tell you what it means, perhaps, in connection with PetroCan, to be "closely articulated, internationally reinforcing, inherently dynamic". Well, it is "inherently dynamic" because when we incorporated PetroCan, as you know, Sir, there were to be 180 or so employees in that particular company. It was to be a window on the world. It was to make deals with foreign lands-


Mr. Blais:: "Into the industry".


Frank Oberle: All right, into the industry. It was to keep the industry honest.


John Leslie Evans: Don't confuse him with the facts.


Frank Oberle: Then a year later, two years later, the bureaucracy grows and grows and grows.


Jean-Jacques Blais: So did the assets.


Frank Oberle: How much were the dividends to the shareholders? How much in dividends did you get last year from PetroCan? Can you tell me that? How much additional equity did you buy in Petro-Canada? Do you know that? Here is a Minister of the Crown. I challenge him to tell me how much the dividends were from PetroCan to the Canadian shareholders, the voters, the electorate.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We reinvested it.


Frank Oberle: The other Minister says it was reinvested. All right. How much of the dividends was reinvested and how much additional equity did you buy with my money? It is "inherently dynamic". It is out of control. You have no control over that place. Tell me how many subsidiaries PetroCan has, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister?


Jean-Luc Pepin: "Acting Prime Minister".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I know the Hon. Member is an experienced parliamentarian, and I am sure he knows that his remarks should be addressed to the Chair.


Jean-Jacques Blais: You did not like it. You wanted to sell the thing. You are biased.


Frank Oberle: I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, but through you, perhaps I could ask the Acting Prime Minister who sits here in the House, together with one other Minister, to tell me how many subsidiaries Petro-Canada has.


James Ross Fulton: 200.


Frank Oberle: My socialist friend says 200. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask how many would the Acting Prime Minister
say?


Jean-Luc Pepin: As many as it needs.
May 4, 1984

Mir. Oberle: As many as it needs to exercise the Government's purpose, and the Government's purpose is to keep Canadians in the dark, to keep Parliament in the dark. Do not tell them anything. What about the executive officers of PetroCan, or any other Crown corporation? Are they elected by the directors? Oh, no, these are people appointed by these people opposite.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It was the same way when you were in power.


Frank Oberle: They make decisions over which Parliament and the Canadian public have absolutely no control. Let me ask the Acting Prime Minister another question. How many new jobs did PetroCan create last year? How many new barrels of oil has PetroCan found?


John Leslie Evans: Order.


Frank Oberle: And show me in the PetroCan Bill where we gave it the authority to build service stations and get into the neighbourhood service station business. There is a legitimate role for government in the marketplace.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is debatable.


Frank Oberle: Just because the CNR, our great transportation system and our communication networks, have to become instruments of public policies because of the sheer geography and nature of our country, that does not mean we should get into the food chain business, that we should get into fertilizer, that we should get into selling gasoline in competition with private entrepreneurs.


Mr. Benjamin:: Why not?


Frank Oberle: That is not being an instrument of public policy.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: See if they can cut the mustard.


Frank Oberle: That is being greedy, centralist, socialist-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: Well, you would like that, of course. These fellows over here are the socialists and, of course, they would like that; but they have nothing on these guys across the way.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is a debatable subject.


Frank Oberle: They are so far ahead of you in their central planning, in their total integration and in their total concentration of all that has to do with the economy. You are babes in the woods. That is why you will be wiped out in the next election, because these people over there will be telling Canadians so many lies about the virtue of being in business and buying and controlling everything from Ottawa. They will be telling Canadians about all these virtues and, as the saying goes, some people can be fooled all of the time and some will be fooled once again.
Financial Administration Act


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They do not know how to run a Crown corporation. We know how.


Frank Oberle: But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot fool all the people all the time and, therefore, there will be a change in government and we will have to rethink when that change comes how we want to build and rebuild our economic and corporate structure in this country.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Yea, Bennett!


Frank Oberle: Socialism, Sir, has been attempted for the last 15 years across the way. It has been attempted all over the world. These fellows are saying it does not necessarily have to fail, and it does not always necessarily have to fail; but it always does because socialism does not work except in heaven where you do not need it and in hell where you already have it.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be recognized for debate on Bill C-24. I thought you were going to recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans). I would be glad to defer to him. He seemed to want to get into the debate earlier.


John Leslie Evans: I have.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: The Hon. Member indicates he has already spoken on the Bill, but I see he still has things to say. Perhaps he will get another opportunity.
There are many interesting features about this Bill and I want to go over a few of them in the few minutes which are available to me today. The first interesting feature is that the Opposition has been calling for some kind of reform in Crown corporation accountability for years, probably decades. So has the Public Accounts Committee. As the Speaker well knows, that is a relatively non-partisan but certainly all-Party Committee, and in many reports, which I will be referring to later, it has been calling for reform of Crown corporations. The Auditor General as well-and I will have more to say about him later-has been making a plea to the Government to improve the accountability of Crown corporations and others. The Government, for its part, has said that it also wants better accountability from Crown corporations and improved parliamentary control. Sadly, however, the result of its desire and deliberations is the Bill which we have before us today.
Second, Mr. Speaker, the Government, with all the power which is available to a majority Party running the Government, has produced a much watered down Bill-such a watered down Bill, in fact, that we in the Opposition who have been calling for reform have been forced to take a position opposed to a Bill which we had been calling for for all that length of time. That is also a very interesting feature of this Bill.
Third, the Government under the guise of consultation has politicized the office of the Auditor General by a ruse, I would say by a "rabbit out of the hat trick", if you like, and I refer to the well publicized letter of the Auditor General to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He also wrote one to the President of

May 4, 1984
Financial Administration Act
the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray), who I see in the House today. In that letter to the Prime Minister, the Auditor General included this sentence-he was referring of course, to this Bill:
I am entirely supportive of this version of the proposed legislation.
I do not suggest that my friend-and I count him as a friend-Mr. Dye, the Auditor General, has sold his soul to the devil, but I do believe that the devil has taken advantage of him; and I refer, of course, to the "devil" across the aisle here. The publication of a personal letter from the Auditor General to the Prime Minister was never the intent of the Auditor General. He has stated that and I believe that to be the case. The Auditor General is an honourable man and when he sees someone making an effort to go in the same direction as himself, he likes to congratulate them; but he certainly did not expect that to become a public document.


John Leslie Evans: Congratulations, but do not tell anyone.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: The other "cat in the hat trick", which the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) might want to talk about when he gets an opportunity again, is the showing to the Auditor General of several different versions of Bill C-24. Most of them are totally unsatisfactory, and he told the Government people that was the case. So that when they finally pulled out this version, it did not look too bad to the Auditor General and he was moved to write that letter. I repeat the sentence of the Auditor General's letter;
I am entirely supportive of this version of the proposed legislation.
That sentence caused me a lot of trouble. I had an opportunity to ask the Auditor General in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates about that letter and what he really meant. Reading from the minutes of the Committee, I said this:
-how were you able to form that strong an opinion so quickly? Did you have input into the drafting of it? Were there other versions that you saw, and this version was better?
Three questions in one, Mr. Speaker. The Auditor General responded:
There were a number of versions, quite considerably different versions, particularly in the audit area.
He goes on:
In fact, the bottom line of our views was that the audit provisions ought to be scrapped as they were written. The government continued on its course with a set of provisions that I found to be completely inadequate. I advised the Minister responsible of my views that those sections should all be scrapped.
Skipping a sentence:
I could not persuade the drafters of the legislation to use the language that I rather was taken by in the Canagrex Bill, to have the words "comprehensive auditing" in legislation. That advice or preferred position of mine was not accepted.
Then I asked him another question about a suggestion he referred to and he said:
Should you ask me to appear before you in committee, if this Bill goes to committee, I have a number of preferred options. But taken as a whole, I think this is a considerable improvement over where we are today.
That is why I say they tricked the Auditor General by showing him all these totally unsatisfactory versions and then springing this version here on him. Speaking of the version, he says later on:
The final version that became Bill C-24 does have a number of changes. Taken as a whole, they are not significant, although I am concerned about the definition of a Crown corporation. That changed. At the moment I believe the Bill says-there is no reference to accountability to Parliament. If you look at Clause 95.(1), that has changed, somehow. We were not consulted after about February 28 or so.
A little further on I asked him about the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the Chair has some misgivings about the Hon. Member using quotations on a matter presently before a committee, I understand. Could the Hon. Member enlighten the Chair about the particular quotations he is using and whether they pertain to a matter now before committee? The general principle would apply that a matter before committee is rightfully before that committee and should not be debated simultaneously in the House. I would like the Hon. Member to instruct me in that regard.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, the quotations are contained in the minutes of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. They were elicited during the examination of the Auditor General's estimates. Therefore, I do not think there is any conflict. The estimates have been dealt with by that Committee and we are now debating the Bill, which is not before the Committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for the explanation. Nevertheless, unless the Committee has reported on its findings the matter cannot be before the House. It cannot be in the Committee and the House at the same time. I suppose the Hon. Member could refer indirectly to that matter, but as far as the Chair is concerned, the matter he is referring to is before the Committee and therefore I ask him to come back to the general principles of the Bill and avoid details which are best dealt with at committee stage.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, let me just say that in conversation with the Auditor General, he assured me that he wished he had not said "entirely supportive". He wished that he had used the word "generally", and in fact he thought he had scribbled out the word "entirely" before handing the letter over for typing.
The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, a prestigious group of which I am a member and a Fellow, felt that this was such an important piece of legislation that it formed a Crown corporation study group consisting of about 12 prominent chartered accountants from across the country and their staff. There are three all-day meetings proposed for this group. I was pleased to be invited to join this study group, not as a politician but as a chartered accountant and past Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It was agreed that the group's hearings would be off the record and that documents provided to its members be considered privileged. For these reasons, and because the second meeting of the
May 4, 1984

group will be held next week, I cannot comment further on the work of that group. It appears that the undue haste of the Government to push this Bill through will prevent the deliberations of the CICA from being of any use whatever.
I have other comments that I wanted to make, but because of some procedural difficulties I see we are running close to the end of my time. I would just mention one final interesting feature of this Bill, and that is the undue haste of the Government in wanting to have this Bill passed. In my mind the introduction of this Bill would have been adequate to give the Government the impetus it wants to be able to demonstrate to the public that it cares about Crown corporation accountability. I now find the Government is determined to get this Bill through. One can only conclude the Government has some other motives in mind, probably that it is running into difficulty with Bill C-25, the CDIC Bill. We will see about that when the time comes.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, it is a very exciting experience to speak in the House of Commons on a roaring Friday afternoon. It fills one with trepidation! I see my friend, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais), is present in the House this afternoon. I asked him to pay close attention to the speech I made earlier this week, which he did and for which I thank him.
Today I would recommend he pay attention to the business before him since I do not have much hope that the speech I am making will have any profound effect on changing the will of this Government, which seems hell bent on having this Bill proceed. The Government is forcing the Opposition to maintain its responsibility in opposing this Bill because we have to decide whether or not the principles of this Bill are worthy enough of support to allow it to go before committee. As so many of my colleagues have eloquently demonstrated, the principles of this Bill are not only insufficient but also defective. I compliment the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) for drawing our attention to the style, shall we say, exercised by the Government in eliciting the support of the Auditor General for this Bill. If that is an indication of support at a highly competent level, then this Bill is in pretty deep trouble.
I think it has been drawn to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that an analysis of Bill C-24 shows that there are several substantive reasons why we feel it should not proceed. The reasons we find it offensive are centered on the manner in which the Government will be permitted to make regulations concerning Crown corporations, the manner of their operations, the appointment of their boards and, particularly, the bypassing of the boards for the appointment of their chief executive officers. We feel that every section of substance in this Bill has attached to it a regulation-making power by the Governor in Council which is unspecified at the moment. Moreover, there is every reason to expect that the Government will change those regulations, having made them, without accountability to Parliament or without parliamentary input in those decisions. We feel, moreover, that there are no criteria established, especially for the manner in which corporations
Financial Administration Act
would be moved from schedule to schedule. That is the beginning of our analysis which has led us to oppose this Bill.
There is also, Mr. Speaker, the question of the rights of Parliament with respect to Crown corporations and the accountability functions of Members of Parliament. Apparently we have to make the point repeatedly that Parliament has no control over the creation of Crown corporations or of subsidiaries of Crown corporations. It is with regard to subsidiaries that the greatest proliferation is taking place. We have heard comments earlier today, as well as on other occasions, about the inability to count the total number of subsidiaries. I doubt whether we even have an accurate count of Crown corporations as such. The information on the number of subsidiaries of Petro-Canada, for instance, is simply not available. While Petro-Canada itself performs certain functions that are of benefit to the Canadian people, it is rather difficult to understand how it is of benefit to the Canadian economy for Petro-Canada to get into the service station business. Moreover, we think that there is insufficient accountability to the Government and Parliament about the way in which the subsidiaries of Crown corporations are run. As a result, the cost of the manner of operation is defective in that the controls are not strong enough.
Bill C-24 says that a Minister need not get parliamentary approval if there is in existence an Act giving the Minister power over a Department. We think the rights of Parliament are again bypassed in that way. When such matters are finally allowed to come before Parliament, the Bill stipulates that Members be confined to 30 days of debate in a committee and seven hours of debate in the House. This is entirely insufficient, particularly in the cases of major corporations which need reviews from time to time. I have already mentioned Petro-Canada. Air Canada is another corporation which surely needs close scrutiny by Members trying to exercise their responsibility to ensure that the best transportation system for Canadians is available at a time of great changes in deregulations in the industry generally.
I would like to discuss the matter of the composition of boards. The way in which this Bill would set up the membership of boards of directors would, in effect, turn them into advisory boards rather than actual boards taking the responsibility of decision-making. The Cabinet would appoint chief executive officers without any consultation with the board of directors of the Crown corporation concerned. If one considers the examples of Canadair and de Havilland, one must shudder at the prospect of the Government extending widely the principle of appointing senior management to Crown corporations without any reference at all to the boards of directors. I must ask what boards of directors are for.
Earlier today, the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) suggested that the boards of directors be strengthened by the inclusion on them of Members of Parliament and Senators. In other words, some Members would be selected out of the House and the other place to serve on boards of

May 4, 1984
Financial Administration Act
directors of Crown corporations. The argument to support that is that the MPs and Senators would perform a sort of watchdog role. In respect of that particular point, Mr. Speaker, I would argue that I do not think that is a good proposal. I believe that Members of Parliament and Senators should not be appointed to the directorship of Crown corporations, but rather that directors should be chosen from members of the public who have demonstrated competence-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order please. The Chair regrets having to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his speaking time has come to an end.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few things about Bill C-24. I am sorry the previous Member did not have more time. I would like to extract a few points from the May 15 news release of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray). There are a few interesting things in here that the Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) and some other Tories seem to have overlooked.
The first thing is that the first Crown corporations in Canada were created in 1841. The first Canadian corporation in the form of a public enterprise was a Board of Work in the United Provinces of Canada created to construct a canal system in Canada. By the turn of the century, the Conservatives in this part of the country had taken on the development and management of Crown corporations on a large scale. Today, with eight Conservative provincial Governments, the Party Quebecois in Quebec, which is basically a Conservative Government, and the NDP Government of Manitoba, we find that the corporate holdings of the provincial Governments exceed those of the federal Government in terms of total assets represented. About 75 per cent of the provincial Crown corporations have been created since 1960.
We have an interesting situation here, Mr. Speaker. We hear Tory after Tory getting up and berating Crown corporations. They are not berating the theme of this legislation, the stated function of which is to bring more accountability for Crown corporations to Parliament and to Canada, which is a laudable intention. However, the Tories have not been pursuing that theme. They have been going after Crown corporations but have not bothered to point out the fact that their own Party at the provincial level is the greatest creator and developer of Crown corporations in Canada. They do not want to talk about Peter Lougheed's airline, PWA in Alberta or all the Crown corporations of Bill Davis, Grant Devine and so on. The litany of Crown corporations under Tory administrations goes on and on.
In almost every case, as the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out, there is far less accountability than is proposed in this legislation. However, the very nature of the Tory Party makes them play games in which they tell the electorate that they are opposed to Crown corporations and this kind of accountability for a variety of reasons, but they never bother to tell the truth
about Crown corporations and why they are created, which I believe is the responsible thing to do.
They have not pointed out why, as my colleague for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky) pointed out, ten of the largest corporations in Canada are Crown corporations while none of the 250 largest corporations in the United States are Crown corporations. We should reflect on that fact because of the nature of Canada and of our history with respect to the United States in particular which has tried to form a branch plant economy in Canada and has only allowed certain kinds of commodities to be created here while preventing us from using its technology and industrial resource base to expand into world markets. The United States has always held back and has returned the profits from Canadian labour, resources and capital back to the United States.
Crown corporations have been developed by socialist governments in Canada, Liberal governments and Tory governments. I should point out that this has been done to the greatest extent by Tory administrations. This is something that the Tories do not want to discuss because their corporate boardroom friends do not like it.
Let me address a number of shortcomings in this legislation which should be remedied. They are important questions to which a number of Members have spoken. There are various Crown corporations listed in the schedules of this legislation. For instance, there are 14 Crown corporations listed under Schedule B, such as the Atomic Energy Control Board, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, national museums and so on. Schedule B at present includes 15 in the list, such as the Medical Research Council and the National Research Council of Canada. There are 29 listed under Schedule C, such as the Canada Ports Corporation, Loto Canada, The Royal Canadian Mint and so on. There are 26 listed under Schedule D, including Air Canada, Eldorado Nuclear, Petro-Canada, VIA Rail and so on. The list goes on.
Since I came here five years ago I have always been concerned about the fact that there is no one in Ottawa who can accurately say how many Crown corporations and subsidiaries exist. While the President of the Treasury Board has introduced a good measure, it should really alert Canadians to how insufficient accountability has been to this point. This has also been pointed out by Mr. Dye, the Auditor General. That provision appears at page 54 of the Bill at Clause 16. It states:
Each parent Crown corporation shall, within thirty days after the coming into force of this Act, send a copy of every by-law of the corporation in effect on the coming into force of this Act to the appropriate Minister and the President of the Treasury Board.
I submit that that is an open admission by the Government that it does not know what the bylaws are or what the Crown corporations are. This is a method of smoking them out.
The Government takes one further step with Clause 17, which states:
Notwithstanding section 100 of the said Act-
May 4, 1984

Which is the strongest clause of the Act.
-where a parent Crown corporation is in existence on the coming into force of this Act and is not named in Schedule C to the said Act six months after the coming into force of this Act, the directors and shareholders of the corporation shall forthwith after the expiry of that period take all steps necessary to dissolve the corporation.
For the first time since Confederation, a piece of legislation has been introduced that will smoke out all of the subsidiary and parent Crown corporations so that they will come under one compilation, Schedule C, of this Bill C-24.
The simple admission by the Government that it is unaware of the bylaws of many of these Crown corporations and subsidiaries is alarming. However, it is beneficial to know that six months after the passage of this Bill all of those Crown corporations which have not filed with the Minister responsible as is required will cease to exist.
There are also some peculiarities written into this legislation which make it quite slippery, as is often the case with that side of the House. This Party has no representation in the Senate and does not intend to have any, particularly while that is a place where the democratic process does not occur.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The last guy who said that was Hazen Argue.


James Ross Fulton: He is not in the NDP. My friend from Saskatchewan is trying to tell me that Senator Hazen Argue is in the NDP.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He made the same speech when he was in the NDP.


James Ross Fulton: Members will be interested to note the following on page 52 under Clause 155(3):
A motion moved in a House of Parliament pursuant to subsection (1) stands referred, for a period of 30 sitting days-
It goes on to state that the references can be made to a committee in either House. Once again we are faced with a piece of legislation that has been designed so that the House of Commons will be avoided by design. All of the sensitive Crown corporation information will never come here. The only thing that will happen is that information will be tabled in the House 15 days after something has occurred. In some cases it will be tabled on the thirty-first sitting day after a session begins. In some cases, such as in this session, it may be years before we actually find out what has gone on on the government side in terms of the tabling or action in the committees of the other House. I do not consider that to be a particularly helpful clause.
Let me discuss two other points that are related to Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee as well as other committees of the House have made recommendations that either committees of the House of Parliament itself should be involved in decisions that affect not only hundreds of millions of dollars, as we know now, but billions of dollars of public moneys. On page 10 of the Bill we find that the Government goes around Parliament once again. It does this not only to permit sensitive issues to go to the Senate and its committees
Financial Administration Act
where they will never see the light of day, in this case it says, in Clause 91(1):
The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the appropriate Minister, give a directive to any parent Crown corporation, if the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so.
Once again it is simply done either by Cabinet decree or by making use of the Senate.
I have one final point to make with regard to the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The time allotted to the Hon. Member has expired.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to be able to rise to discuss the Crown corporations Bill, Bill C-24. The mere necessity even to introduce the Bill to the House is an obvious admission on the part of the Government that the Government has totally lost control of Crown corporations. After listening to the previous speaker, and considering the support his Party has shown for the Government in the past few years, it is difficult to understand whether indeed they are for or against Crown corporations.
It is my intention this afternoon to demonstrate to the House the extent to which the control of Crown corporations has escaped the authority and influence of Parliament, which is where the control and influence over Crown corporations and their direction should be placed. In doing that, I will be dealing with the Canada Ports Corporation, which has particular significance in the areas of the Atlantic region and in the western region. I hope to be able to demonstrate through the use of the example of this corporation how out of control this whole matter of Crown corporations has become.
The Port of Saint John is one of the seven national ports of the country. It comes under the jurisdiction of the Canada Ports Corporation. The direction of the Canada Ports Corporation and of its predecessor over the last number of months has not been in the best interests of the port City of Saint John, nor of the people who live there. I would like to demonstrate why that is the case.
It will become obvious from the statistics and from the information which I am about to provide that the policies of the Canada Ports Corporation over the past number of years have had a detrimental effect upon the economic well-being of the Port of Saint John and upon the economic situation in that area. Because of the insensitivity of the Government, unfortunately the port has seen a steady decline in revenues, a steady decline in the amount of business channelled through it, and port activity has suffered considerably.
The first statistic with which I would like to deal concerns the commodity of flour. In 1980, 132,000 metric tons of flour was put through the Port of Saint John, whereas in 1983 it had declined to an amount of 63,000 mts. It is not that we have not addressed ourselves to this issue or that the House is unaware of the situation with reference to the shipment of flour and grain through the port. As a matter of fact, in June 1982, I brought to the attention of the Minister responsible for the

May 4, 1984
Financial Administration Act
Canadian Wheat Board the declining situation with reference to shipments of wheat. His response basically was that we should be satisfied with what we had been receiving and that the Government could probably justify itself by not even putting that number of shipments through the Port of Saint John. In terms of wood pulp in 1980, there were 5,506,000 mts put through that port, whereas in 1983 it declined to 368,000 mts. Lumber declined from 164,000 mts in the same year to 77,000 mts in 1983. On and on the story goes.
I understand that the recession has contributed substantially to the fact that revenues from port activities are down. However, 20 some years ago the Port of Saint John was a booming facility. It was one of the gateways of trade into Canada. Indeed, it was the bright spot for the future of that area. At that time, for reasons better known to the Government, it decided to open up the St. Lawrence River and sent up ice-breakers. That was the start of the process of decline in that region. There has been no greater threat to the economy of Saint John since that time. There have been several serious blows coupled with that situation since that time. For example, two major labour-intensive lines were lost to Saint John.
We require more positive action and a more positive attitude on the part of the Government. I am concerned because the Bill does not address itself to the situation. I am glad to see the former Minister of Transport sitting here this afternoon. I hope he will take to heart some of the very serious matters which I am bringing to his attention and will pass on the information to his colleagues. Perhaps we will see some positive results.
If we are to keep pace with the competition, if we are to deal with dwindling cargoes and things of that nature, there must be a positive attitude on the part of the Government. That has not developed over the past, despite the fact that this port is one of the most efficient in Canada. Its labour productivity is second to none. If the figures on the tonnage handled per man-hour are examined, it becomes obvious that the Port of Saint John is the most productive in the country, including those of Montreal, Quebec and other regions. It is incumbent upon the Government to recognize the efficiency and the difficulties which that port is presently experiencing. It employs 6 per cent of the labour force in that part of the country, yet the Government continues to ignore that fact or that it utilizes 5.8 per cent of disposable income in that area. It is the economic heart of Saint John. The port is an extremely valuable facility. Business and labour have indicated their willingness to co-operate with the port. In fact, the port has demonstrated its goodwill in its labour contracts and in its ability to get along. We now need co-operation and sensitivity from a government which has been unwilling to demonstrate this in the past.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate this afternoon in this extended debate on Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation
to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.
It is interesting to note that while it has taken the Government over four years to come to grips with the issue of Crown corporations, even in its inefficient and inadequate manner, the previous Government, under the leadership of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), managed to come to grips with the entire issue in a matter of about six months. In its short term of office, it was able to present a Bill which would have dealt with the entire problem of Crown corporations.
I am not inclined to argue with my colleague who preceded me, but he suggested that Crown corporations were out of hand. I think I know what he meant; in a sense he was right. However, Crown corporations as far as the Government is concerned are very well in hand. They are just exactly the way the Government wants them so that it can carry out, through the mechanism of Crown corporations, the kinds of activities it wants to do in secret. The Government wants to keep these activities secret from the House of Commons and from the people of Canada. We can find example after example of exorbitant amounts of money being spent by the Government to bail out Crown corporations such as Canadair.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Government has been deliberately slow in bringing in any reforms in the whole arena of Crown corporations. It knows perfectly well that the needed reforms will not be the ones which will suit it in terms of allowing the Government to exercise the devious sort of control it would like to have over a large sector of the Canadian economy.
The Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson) and the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) have spent a lot of time studying this Bill. They have spent much more time than many of us have and certainly have identified many of its weaknesses. In fact, when one first looks at the Bill, one would be inclined to think that it was attempting to address some of the real problems existing in Crown corporations.
In listening for a short time this afternoon and this morning to my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) and Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), we are convinced that there is a superficiality to this Bill. It does seem to address the issues of Crown corporations which have been of concern to Members of Parliament. However, when you read the Bill carefully, you find it has not achieved that. The one problem with Crown corporations, the failure to be accountable to Members of Parliament in particular, is not dealt with in this Bill.
I want to deal with the problems and issues raised by this Bill which have not been addressed adequately. As I mentioned, accountability is the predominant problem. The concept of Crown corporations is not new. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) gave the Conservative Party credit for a lot of the past history of Crown corporations. He is quite right that we have been involved and supportive over the years.
May 4, 1984

Contrary to what he says, we are not critical of Crown corporations per se. We feel there is a real need for Crown corporations.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Get your act together.


Bruce Halliday: Our act is together. We all agree there is a need for Crown corporations in certain circumstances. The difference is that we want Crown corporations to be accountable to this House of Commons and the people of Canada, not accountable to the Cabinet, which has been the experience with this Government. That is why it does not want to see any major changes. It knows that a worthwhile change would take away the privilege of the Government to make changes by Order in Council when making appointments and paying debts of Crown corporations in difficulty without any recourse or consultation with Parliament.
One of the most interesting writings on Crown corporations was contained in a presentation given at a conference on Crown corporations in Toronto last fall. The presentation was made by Professor Robert Prichard, a visiting professor of law from Harvard Law School. The presentation was entitled Reforming Crown corporations. He looked at the whole subject in a very thorough manner and tried to make a diagnosis of the problems. He boiled that down to seven major problems and concluded the presentation by what he called "the treatment".
Let me dwell on his seven-point diagnosis. First, the problem is aggravated and compounded by the fact that Crown corporations have proliferated at a rapid pace over the last number of years. As my colleague said, if you ask an official of the Government or a member of the Cabinet how many Crown corporations we have, it is almost impossible to say on any given day how many there are in existence. This proliferation compounds the problem of trying to cope with them.
Second, it is evident that there has not been established an adequate legal and jurisdictional regime to deal with the accountability problem of Crown corporations. This is something we in the Official Opposition would like to see. This is one of the main problems with Crown corporations.
The third item identified in the diagnosis is what he termed the bureaucratization of the accountability process. Bill C-24 just aggravates that situation. We find in this Bill that Crown corporations may be responsible to Cabinet and have certain responsibility to individuals, but there is no consistency in dealing with the problem of where the accountability lies with Crown corporations. There is a mishmash of responsibility, which leads to a definite undermining of the whole process of accountability.
The fourth item has to do with the resistance among bureaucrats to changes in the accountability process. That naturally does not fit in with the concept of the bureaucrats to increase their power and dominion. They object to anything in a Bill such as Bill C-24 that would lessen their opportunity to exert influence at this level.
Financial Administration Act
The fifth item is something we cannot get away from, that is, the politicization of appointments to boards. I have had a little experience in getting to know individuals who are on boards. During the last year it has been my pleasure to know three people who were appointed to a recently-created Crown corporation. One is a chief executive officer. These people perform impeccably well in the private sector. I do not look upon them as being strongly politicized individuals. They may have some leanings, I do not know, but they were successful in their individual enterprises. I hope they will not be disappointed when they take on their role on the board of directors. They may find that the role they played in the private sector is not open to them in the same manner.
I find that there is not enough time left for me to discuss the treatment. I appreciate the opportunity of presenting the problem that exists with Crown corporations.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, it is time that we had an opportunity to examine, even in a superficial way, the proliferation of Crown corporations in this country and the aberration caused in the business community with regard to Canada's economic demise as a competent nation. It evolves around all that we are looking at today with regard to the chaos which has resulted for many businessmen and individuals. There is a horrendous list of bankruptcies. This has produced an almost static figure of 1.5 million unemployed. This has been the case for month after month and there is little possibility that these people will soon get back into the work force.
An examination should be made of the proliferation of these Crown corporations. If you go back to 1962, you will find that a totally new socialistic approach developed with regard to the role of the private sector as compared to the public or government sector.
We have gone from something like 28 Crown corporations to Lord knows how many. You can start around 300 and work up to 600 and find some justification for saying that they have the mark of a Crown corporation. Today there are almost as many individuals working for Crown corporations as there are working in the Public Service of Canada. I believe there are over a quarter million people employed in the various Crown corporations. Another type of partial employment is available through the directorships of these Crown corporations. While there may be examples of very worth-while people who are making a contribution in one way or another to these Crown corporations, boards of directors of Crown corporations have become the Liberal Party's greatest porkbarrel in the history of the nation.
During this debate, many of my colleagues have asked what is the role of a director of a Crown corporation. Becoming a director of a given company in the private sector is dependent upon a personal track record of achievement in whatever sector of the economy one has developed an expertise. Everyone who is appointed as a director of a significant private-sector company in the country has a proven success record.

May 4, 1984
Financial Administration Act
However, for directors of Crown corporations, that proven success record is based absolutely upon one's leanings toward the Liberal Party. It is based upon how much money one has given or has raised for the Liberal Party and how much work one has done for the Liberal Party. It is based upon the fact that one is a defeated candidate or a defeated Cabinet Minister.
Some of the real horror stories that we have heard and for which we have had to pay the bills relate directly to people who have been found to be incompetent as Members of Parliament by the Canadian people. One such person I might mention who has gone from one beautiful green pasture to the next is Barney Danson. He was rejected by his constituency and ended up with de Havilland. I believe he is in Boston now. He goes from one sweet job to the next, leaving a trail of horror behind him. de Havilland was already in some difficulty, but it was nothing like the difficulty it found itself in after Mr. Danson became president. Who ends up paying those bills, Mr. Speaker? We do.
I happened to take a look at the April 30, 1984, issue of Fortune magazine. A statement on politics and policy in that magazine contains a discussion of the Mitterrand Government in France and its socialistic tendencies which have got France and the French people into difficulty. When looking at some of the comparisons used in that article regarding the difficulties of given nations with their external debts-I see that as an example-Canada's external debt exceeds those of Mexico and Brazil, two countries which we call almost bankrupt. Canada's debt exceeds Argentina's debt as well. As a matter of fact, according to these figures, Canada's external debt is $99.5 billion or 34 per cent of the gross domestic product, whereas Argentina's external debt is $36.5 billion and represents 30 per cent of its gross domestic product. It is not very pleasant to pick up an article like this and see what our financial rating is in comparison with that of other countries in the world, especially when those other countries are in real economic difficulty.
The Government of Canada tries to make us believe that everything is great and wonderful. It tries to make us believe that tomorrow will be a wonderful day, except for the fact that no one seems to have any respect for our dollar. Our dollar is costing the taxpayers of the country high interest rates, a lack of jobs and a lack of housing starts. Who is going to start to build a house now while watching us go down the road again to the high interest situation that destroyed many Canadian families not more than a year and a half ago? Yet billions of dollars are now being spent in an attempt to prop up a dollar that was a disgrace to start with and is worth 77 cents U.S.
Therefore, I would say that we do not need a Bill that is as anaemic as is this Bill. It is anaemic in comparison with our hopes for ever having control over the proliferation of Crown corporations, the incompetence of Crown corporations or the destructiveness to the private sector of Crown corporations. What we in Canada need is the elimination of incompetence and the elimination of many of the Crown corporations that go along with it. We certainly need some form of protection to
eliminate the porkbarreling that goes on with the appointments of Grits only to the directorships of these boards. These Grits receive free plane tickets and free directors' fees for doing next to nothing. They end up finding out that for all of their incompetence, they are paid huge bonuses. That is the situation with de Havilland and that is the mess in which we find ourselves. The only way we are going to get out of that mess is by getting rid of these people and putting in power some people who will put some sense into the economy of the country.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this Bill was introduced at this time in an attempt to appease the public and the parliamentary outcry over scandals like Canadair. If that is so, it is quite clear that its purpose was not to place Crown corporations under effective public control but to appear to place Crown corporations under effective public control. There is an old saying that British justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. It appears that this Government does not believe that justice needs to be done but that only the facade need be created.
Previous speakers have pointed out many of the flaws in the Bill. There is no control over subsidiaries. The parent company may escape all of its real obligations by simply emptying itself into those subsidiaries that have already been pioneered. There is no control of the regulations. There is no assurance that elected representatives will be able to receive all the relevant facts, and there is no opportunity for elected representatives to debate certain reports and reject them if they find them to be faulty. This is not too surprising because, contrary to the statement of the badly informed Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), Crown corporations are not a socialist invention. If, as he said, they only work in hell, it is because they were invented by capitalist governments.
At times, the CCF and NDP have used something like a Crown corporation as a model, because it was the only thing available under the current federal structure and laws of the country. However, for a century and more back, Crown corporations typically have been created to meet the needs of the most pressing and aggressive business people in the private business world. Until the late 1930s, that was generally done under the leadership of federal Tory Governments, and since then it has been done under the leadership of federal Liberal Governments.
The Tories, of course, feel that they have been shut out from what they call the porkbarrel and they want in again. In the meantime, as was pointed out by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), they are doing quite well with their provincial porkbarrels. Crown corporations were not created to serve the common people. They were created to serve the needs of big business. One need only look at Ontario Hydro to see a clear example of that at the provincial level.
I would first like to mention some examples of that which I have just indicated. Canadian Pacific created the means for investors to open up the West, to get at the minerals and other raw materials of the country, and to make a bundle by shipping farmers to the West.
May 4, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) has passed twice between the Hon. Member who is speaking and the Chair in the last two or three minutes. I would suggest that the Hon. Member watch out for this.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Of course, Canadian Pacific is the most famous example of a corporation cheating taxpayers by taking subsidies given by taxpayers, and then reneging on commitments to provide transportation either for passengers or for freight. Its successor, VIA Rail, which was really created as a smokescreen for the CP, or the CP-CN, has established an amazing record of being totally free from the control of Parliament. During 1981 and 1982, Opposition Parties tried in every way to get some control over VIA Rail's cutback of 20 per cent of its service. The Government simply laughed at us and protected VIA Rail.
Canada Post has become a Crown corporation. Its prime function now is not to serve the individual person who writes letters, but to serve commercial corporations. It is cutting back on the service to individual letter writers and letter receivers.
There is also the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which for four decades has been following the purpose of funding private investors who are rent-gougers in the real estate industry. There is a small veneer of non-profit subsidy, but most of the subsidy goes to unlimited rental units and rent-gougers. They are now getting into the business of rent supplements, whereby the public purse will simply be used as a way of funnelling money to an unlimited degree to the private profit corporations which are monopolizing the apartment industry in the major cities of Canada.
In reference to housing, there is an example, not of a Crown corporation but of a public corporation that I think ought to be given more consideration in addressing this Bill on the question of the control of Crown corporations. The City of Toronto created a non-profit housing corporation. It did that for the same reason as that for which Crown corporations have been created, it being mainly that a certain major public need was not being met by private industry. The City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation has many problems. It started out with a great lack of experience and had to learn through a good many of its mistakes. One of its major problems was the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-the delays, misleading statements, reneging on promises, changing of rules in midstream and then the use of changed rules in order to milk not only non-profit corporations but co-ops by changing the basic rent rules after the general program had started. Nevertheless, the City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation has created low to moderately-priced housing for thousands of people in the City of Toronto who otherwise would not have been able to get it. These people would have had extreme difficulties in finding decent housing. What the City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation has that does not characterize the Crown corporations that the Government proposes to set up is, first of all, that city council has access to
Financial Administration Act
all the facts. It has a mixed board, made up of members of council and other citizens. We can argue about the proportions, but the fact is that council members have direct access to all the facts. The board is annually appointed, which means that the whole council can carry out an annual review. As well, the tenants have a right to appear before the board of directors to state their case. The tenants and the public can obtain information so that at the next general election of the members of the council they can, if they wish, elect councillors who will renovate, improve or correct the Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation.
That sort of strength, health and accountability is in no way provided by this Bill. What is really needed federally is legislation which would do the equivalent of what has been done municipally in Toronto and in other places. For one thing, we must remove the immunity of the Crown from ordinary scrutiny and litigation. Consider the scandal of a Crown corporation such as Eldorado being used to protect a whole group of private entrepreneurs who had engaged in a cartel by claiming that because of its being a Crown corporation the matter could not be brought before the courts. That protection must be removed from any Crown corporation legislation.
There must be provision for representation by workers at all levels in the industry. There must also be provision for representation by the users, because it is they who are the watch-dogs, not Parliament. Parliament can be useful in a limited way, but without the people who have the direct experience as workers and as users of the activity of the Crown corporation, Parliament can never be well enough informed to do its job. Above all, there must be guaranteed public access to all the facts, not only by some limited Senate committee or some limited parliamentary committee. There is no good reason why the basic facts of past operations of a publicly-owned corporation need be kept secret. There could be the usual discretionary secrecy when engaging in real estate buying or personnel decisions, which are taken by the City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation, but the books of the past are open and should be so.
I think the Government should junk this Bill, and bring in a Bill that really meets the need of the public, the need for public corporations that could be controlled through public representatives.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the two or three minutes remaining, and so that another Member does not get his ten-minute speech broken up into three and seven-minute parts, I wonder if we could get unanimous agreement that the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) complete his remarks for the remaining two or three minutes until four o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Agreed and so ordered. The Hon. Member for Spadina.

May 4, 1984
Electoral Boundaries


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned that the City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation is not the only one of its kind. Ottawa has one, and many other municipalities have carried out the same experiment. I think it would be useful, when this Bill goes to committee, to invite comments from both CMHC and from some of the non-profit housing corporations in order to gain from the experience which they have had. The committee could then make substantial and informed recommendations as to the possible amendments to the Bill or the possible reworking of the whole Bill, if the Government could be persuaded to withdraw it and bring it back in a more appropriate form.
I believe there is a great need to have full public examination of this Bill in committee. I hope the Government will not rush it. I understand the problem which the Government has in trying to guess when it will call the next general election. Nevertheless, I believe it would be very foolish to proceed on a matter of such great importance without hearing from those across Canada who have experience in organizations such as public non-profit corporations which are not Crown corporations. They would be able to provide a great deal of necessary guidance.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that it is almost four o'clock. If it is acceptable to you, I would be willing to have the House proceed to the next order of business.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: It being four 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

["It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 4.15 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Monday, May 7, 1984']
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the Parties and I think if you sought unanimous consent to proceed directly to immediate consideration of all three stages of Bill C-205, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), you would find such consent. The House could then proceed with that Bill very quickly without any speakers since it is simply a Bill to change the name of the Hon. Member's constituency. I believe he will find there is agreement to move right away through all three readings of that Bill.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Agreed and so ordered.



Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull) moved: that Bill C-205, an Act to change the name of the electoral district of Hull, be now read the second time and, with unanimous consent of the House, be referred to a committee of the whole.


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

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Shall all orders and items preceding No. 98 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PROPOSED EXTENSION OF DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME
A. Daniel McKenzie: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should, at the next Federal-Provincial Conference, consider the question of extending daylight savings time an additional two months.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion reads that, in the opinion of this House, the Government should at the next federal-provincial conference consider the question of extending daylight savings time an additional two months. It should be noted that although local time falls under provincial or municipal jurisdiction, official time is the responsibility of the federal Government.
The National Research Council presented a publication in 1983 recommending that daylight savings time be introduced on March 1, two months earlier than at present. The report states that recent interest in energy conservation has led to detailed studies of the possible advantages of longer periods of daylight savings time. It appears that significant savings in energy would result if daylight savings time were to start nearer the beginning of March and end about a week later in early November. The main energy saving is attributable to reduced consumption of electricity for evening residential lighting.
Year round daylight saving was first used in some countries during the Second World War. It was used in both Quebec and Ontario from September 1940 to September 1945, and throughout Canada from February 1942 until the latter date,
May 4, 1984

by federal Orders in Council passed under the War Measures Act.
In summary, it can be stated that while the use of daylight savings time is of questionable value in rural areas, in the westernmost portions of certain time zones and in the most northerly areas, it is well accepted by most people in Canada and the United States. It is probably only a matter of time before a move to an extended period is made in both these countries.
The National Research Council has been on record as supporting the extension of daylight savings time since 1974 when the United States experimented with daylight time the year round. Mr. C. C. Costain, head of the Council's electrical and time standards section, has stated that much better than year round daylight savings time would be a symmetrical system with about four months of daylight time after July 1 as is the case currently, and four months instead of two months before July 1. During March and April there would be enough light for schoolbound children in the morning and an extra hour for everyone in the afternoon. The Council would also like to see a one-week extension of daylight time in the fall so as to ensure plenty of light in the early evening on Hallowe'en, October 31.
The National Research Council stated that $23.8 million a year could be saved in the reduced use of electricity, the number of traffic accidents would decrease, the crime rate would drop, the economy would be sparked by increasing retail store business and school children would return home in daylight. The Province of Saskatchewan is on extended daylight savings. There would also be psychological benefits during winter blahs.
Currently before the United States Senate, a Bill is being debated which would advance daylight savings time by two months. A decision is to be reached later this year and should the Bill pass, it is expected that Canada will follow by adopting the same plan.
In the summer of 1983 I questioned my constituents of Winnipeg-Assiniboine regarding their feelings on the issue of extending daylight savings. Some 83 per cent favoured an extension, while some wished to have daylight savings time year round, similar to Saskatchewan. Only 12 per cent were against it and 5 per cent were undecided. As there was such an overwhelming majority of constituents who supported this proposal, I contacted the Hon. James Lee, Premier of Prince Edward Island, who is to be the next chairman of the annual premiers conference, and asked that he place the subject of extending daylight savings time on the agenda of the conference. In response to my letter, Premier Lee stated:
My colleagues and I in the Council of Maritime Premiers support the extension of daylight savings time and indicated this in a press release in September, 1982.
The next annual Premiers' conference may be an appropriate forum in which to raise this subject for discussion by the ten Premiers.
The press release which Premier Lee refers to in his letter read as follows:
Daylight Savings Time
The Council of Maritime Premiers said that if the United States Senate approved a bill now before it to begin daylight savings time on the first Monday of March each year, about eight weeks earlier than is now the case, the three Maritime Provinces would urge similar action be taken in Canada.
The U.S. proposal, which has already received approval from the House of Representatives would result in energy savings. Should this become a possibility, it must be implemented in as many areas of North America as possible because of the integrated transportation and communication systems on this continent.
I also received a letter of support from Premier William Davis of Ontario who stated that:
Ontario would be more than willing to consider supporting the extension of daylight savings time if it is also supported and adopted by the other Provinces and by the United States.
As well, there are many other advantages to extended daylight savings time. For example, it has been noted that golfers could leave work at five o'clock and still get 18 holes in before the sun goes down. There are also many housewives who like to golf in the evening as well, so they would be able to go along with their husbands. Of course, this would be more of a benefit to golfers in the United States because our Canadian climate effectively limits our golf season.
If, as in Saskatchewan, it was determined that Canada should be on daylight savings time year round, Air Canada would not have to spend so much money and time on updating flight schedules. The United States is intent on adding a bit of sunlight to the afternoon. As a matter of fact, if legislation does not get the sunlight, technology will. Two NASA scientists postulate that 16 collapsible mirrors could be placed in low earth orbit and then propelled into an orbit 22,500 miles above the continental U.S. At that height the mirrors could track the earth's rotation and, directed by computers, could slowly direct a beam of sunlight from city to city, adding a few hours to the length of each day. It is estimated that this would save the equivalent of $285 million in energy every year and pay for itself within five years. I believe, however, that extending daylight savings time through legislation would be much easier.
I am suggesting that the subject of extending daylight savings time be discussed at the next federal-provincial conference. The ten Premiers could then consider the pros and cons of implementing this proposal in their respective provinces. There has been no response or comment from the west in this regard, and the western Premiers could request that their citizens let their feelings be known on the extension of daylight savings time.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I do not often agree with the views of the Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), and today is one of those rare occasions that Ido.
The suggestion to change daylight saving time or, rather, to extend daylight saving time over eight months of the year, has received the support of the National Research Council, as the Hon. Member pointed out. In fact, the U.S. Senate is current-

May 4, 1984
Daylight Savings Time
ly considering legislation, as the Hon. Member mentioned as well.
We must not forget, however, that changes of this kind will meet with a number of objections in some of our provinces. However, it seems that the arguments in favour, namely, energy conservation, which may mean a few dollars saved per household, and increased public security, should be powerful enough to overcome these objections.
Therefore, I would rather not prolong the debate on this question but simply say that we agree to put this subject on the agenda of the next federal-provincial conference, which would then be able to examine the feasibility of extending daylight saving time an additional two months, in other words, four months before the first of July and four months after.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The question is as follows: Mr. Dan McKenzie moves that, in the opinion of this House, the government should, at the next Federal-Provincial Conference, consider the question of extending daylight savings time an additional two months.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is unanimous agreement that we call it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there agreement to call it five o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 4.15 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 7, 1984