May 27, 1983

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21

CROWN CORPORATIONS

PC

Thomas Scott Fennell

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):

Madam Speaker, last week the Liberal Cabinet dished out another $250 million of public funds to Canadair to continue its money losing fiasco. The Cabinet did not think that this transaction required parliamentary approval. This is one example, of many, of the failure of parliamentary accountability and thus the failure of democracy. Crown corporations for too long have escaped public and parliamentary scrutiny.

To correct this the Liberals have brought in Bill C-153, which 1 can only describe as feeble. The Bill does not provide for comprehensive audits and fails to improve in any substantial way the accountability of Crown corporations to Parliament.

Crown corporations must be made accountable to Parliament. Burgeoning sub-government must be controlled. In the first place, all audits should be done by the Auditor General and not by some external auditing firm. Second, the competitiveness of Crown corporations should not be enhanced by public funds. Any and all public funds allotted to Crown corporations should be detailed in the budget and then thoroughly examined by a parliamentary Committee.

The accountability of Crown corporations should not stop at the Cabinet level. Crown corporations should be made accountable to the people through the Parliament of Canada.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21
Subtopic:   CROWN CORPORATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   ACCOUNTABILITY TO PARLIAMENT
Permalink

GARRISON DIVERSION

NDP

Terence James (Terry) Sargeant

New Democratic Party

Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):

Madam Speaker, earlier this week I and two other Members of this House, and two from the Manitoba legislature, travelled to Washington to meet with a number of Members of both Houses of the American Congress to inform them of Manitoba's concerns about the proposed Garrison Diversion Unit. These types of meetings are very good and will go a long way to ensuring that Manitoba's waterways are protected from the negative aspects of the current design of the Garrison Diversion Unit.

The bottom line, Madam Speaker, is that the Garrison Diversion Unit must be redesigned to remove any transboundary transfer of water.

A new wrinkle is that the U.S. Interior Department is now proposing a phased program. It maintains that in Phase I nothing would be constructed that would adversely affect Manitoba, but Phase I includes the Lonetree Reservoir which is on the Hudson Bay side of the Continental Divide.

Even more alarming is that Interior is now proposing that the fish screens proposed for the McClusky Canal not be built, thus allowing foreign biota clear sailing across the Divide. I would point out that the International Joint Commission found the screens to be an uncertain protection against the biota transfer. Now to propose no protection at all is especially alarming. Perhaps Interior is hoping this threat will scare us into accepting these screens, flawed as they may be. Manitoba's bottom line, I repeat, is that Garrison must be redesigned so as to prevent any and all biota transfer.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21
Subtopic:   GARRISON DIVERSION
Sub-subtopic:   UNITED STATES PLANS FOR PHASED DEVELOPMENT
Permalink
LIB

Jeanne Sauvé (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Madam Speaker:

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21
Subtopic:   GARRISON DIVERSION
Sub-subtopic:   UNITED STATES PLANS FOR PHASED DEVELOPMENT
Permalink

BANKS AND BANKING

LIB

Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):

Madam Speaker, in his April budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) proposed an additional economic stimulus whereby individuals would be permitted a tax-free withdrawal of part or all of their accumulated savings in RHOSPs for the purchase of new home furnishings and appliances. This special short-term consumer incentive was intended to spur the sale of furnishings and appliances which Canadians have delayed purchasing as a result of the uncertainty caused by the recession. In the budget papers the commencement date of this proposal was stated as being April 19. However, several of my constituents have complained that when they have gone to their bank or trust company to make their RHOSP withdrawal for the purchase of furnishings and appliances, their request for the withdrawal has been denied.

The denial of these RHOSP withdrawals affects not only individuals wishing to purchase home furnishings and appliances but also affects the sales of manufacturers such as Cameo Limited, which is located in my riding of Hamilton West. I would therefore strongly urge the Minister of Finance

May 27, 1983

to clarify the present status of this proposal with banks and trust companies, and I would also urge the Opposition to abandon their procedural delaying tactics so that legislation for the budget measures, as well as other necessary legislation, can be passed before the summer recess of Parliament.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21
Subtopic:   BANKS AND BANKING
Sub-subtopic:   WITHDRAWAL OF RHOSP FUNDS
Permalink

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

PC

T.A. Bud Bradley

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):

Madam Speaker, earlier this month the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) held a press conference in my constituency at which he announced a $2 million recreation and fisheries project for the Port Dover Basin in front of, to quote the press, some 50 councillors and local dignitaries.

It was interesting that the regional chairman and myself were not invited to this function, although we had worked with many of the people for many years on this project. I do hope it was not because we happen to be Conservatives. However, I will take the Minister's word that it was the responsibility of the local mayor to invite the dignitaries, but I will also take the local mayor at his word that he thought it was the Minister's responsibility to invite the dignitaries.

[DOT] (UIO)

In any case, Madam Speaker-don't get me wrong-I am not opposed to the Minister coming into my area, and I am certainly not opposed to him announcing a "pork barrel project". In fact the Minister can come down to my riding at any time he so wishes and announce funding for some of the projects we are trying to get going in that area. I will go even further. If the Minister would have someone in his office contact my office I will ensure that he gets a list of the projects we would like to see the Liberal Government "pork barrel" in Haldimand-Norfolk. I even promise, if he so wishes, to stay away when he comes down to make the announcements of funding.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21
Subtopic:   REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Sub-subtopic:   ATTENDANCE AT PORT DOVER PROJECT ANNOUNCEMENT
Permalink

INCOME TAX

PC

Gordon Edward Taylor

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):

Madam Speaker, it is high time that the Canadian Government recognized the contribution being made by volunteers like firemen who work without remuneration, and councillors who work without pay. Provisions for exemption from income tax now for such councillors is one-third of the general expense allowance. Firemen who work without wages receive no consideration whatsoever, even though they work for the good of the community.

I recommend that consideration be included in the Act for income tax purposes for such volunteer firemen who ruin their clothes and give their time, et cetera, in fighting fires in an

amount of the average claimed by firemen who do accept wages and qualify for expense exemption. I also recommend that where councillors and mayors receive a sum of money in lieu of wages to cover costs attending meetings, travelling, checking hydrants, checking buildings, checking complaints, checking wild dogs, et cetera, this be acknowledged and accepted in the amount approved by their councils. MPs, MLAs, and MNAs all receive an expense allowance exemption from income tax, and Canadians who give their time freely, without pay, warrant consideration.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   EXPENSE EXEMPTIONS SOUGHT FOR VOLUNTARY FIREMEN AND NON-PAID COUNCILLORS
Permalink

WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT

NDP

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse (Deputy Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):

Madam Speaker, according to news reports last evening, the Conservatives and Liberals are back together again discussing ways and means of doing away with the Crow rate. Parliament and the country know nothing of what is going on, what items are now negotiable, what new policy changes are under consideration. The only thing that is consistent in this process is the apparent support of both of the old Parties for the killing of the Crow.

This House has been asked to pass a Bill, Bill C-155, that is not yet complete. By the Minister's own statements there is more to come. He says he has important amendments to make to the Bill, yet we are being asked, in effect, to buy a pig in a poke. We are asked to hear witnesses' opinions at committee stage prior to the introduction of the amendments to the Bill, because amendments come after the evidence of witnesses. This process is totally unacceptable.

I call on the Progressive Conservatives to reconsider the cozy relationship they continue and insist upon maintaining with the Liberals on this issue, in order that all of the proposals can be placed in the legislation before us. For that to happen it is vital that the current Bill C-155 be withdrawn to be broken into three separate Bills, so we can deal with each of the three separate policy items in a full, proper, and a public manner.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   REQUEST THAT BILL BE DIVIDED INTO THREE PARTS
Permalink

INCOME TAX

PC

Dave Nickerson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):

Madam Speaker, the lot of the trapper is these days not a happy one. Revenue Canada has set snares and deadfalls for him at every turn. Whereas previously the Income Tax Act was administered with some degree of leniency and common sense as far as trappers were concerned, they are now subject to the harshest impositions the Act allows.

If we cannot go back to the days-of yester year, then at least a special simplified form should be made available to trappers

May 27, 1983

so that they stand some chance of understanding what is required of them.

This problem, however, pales into insignificance when the question of foreign opposition to the Canadian leg hold trap comes into view. It is incumbent upon the Government of Canada to go to bat for the Canadian trappers, just as it did for the Newfoundland sealers, when this threat to the future of our fur industry is raised by foreign opposition groups.

[DOT] (ms)

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   DEPARTMENT'S TREATMENT OF FUR TRAPPERS
Permalink

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

THE ECONOMY

PC

Thomas Scott Fennell

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):

Madam Speaker, my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arises out of my concern over his statements in the newspapers this week regarding free trade which he will promote and propose at the Summit meeting in Williamsburg. This is the same week that the task force report on the automotive industry was read and reviewed by everyone in the House. It was very important because it was written by employers of a large number of people in the country, and by union leaders who represent a large group. Could the Minister explain what might happen to the automobile industry if he proceeds with the free trade proposal which he is taking to Williamsburg?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   THE ECONOMY
Sub-subtopic:   WILLIAMSBURG SUMMIT-EFFECT ON AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY OF MINISTER'S PROPOSAL
Permalink
LIB

Allan Joseph MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Madam Speaker, I should explain to the Hon. Member that last November at the GATT ministerial meeting the Ministers present all undertook to resist further protectionist measures. That undertaking was made by all contracting parties to the GATT. Just recently the OECD ministerial meeting not only agreed to refrain from new protectionist measures but also agreed to dismantle, as recovery proceeded, protectionist measures now in effect. Those are commitments which have already been made by member countries. Unfortunately the record of performance is not as sterling as the commitments themselves.

It would seem to me, if the summit at Williamsburg is to have credibility, that commitments with respect to antiprotectionism ought to be conducted in a meaningful environment. For that reason I have explored with my colleagues the possibility of having some way by which members of the Summit could examine the conduct in light of the commitments that have already been made, and will undoubtedly be repeated at Williamsburg. What I am stating is not a new commitment made by any government, but commitments that will appear more credible in the eyes of the public at the present time.

Oral Questions CANADIAN SHARE OF MARKET

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   THE ECONOMY
Sub-subtopic:   WILLIAMSBURG SUMMIT-EFFECT ON AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY OF MINISTER'S PROPOSAL
Permalink

May 27, 1983