May 22, 1984

PC

Gerry St. Germain

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that I have been given the privilege of rising in this House to speak against this Bill. Bill C-24, which is a Bill to amend the Financial Administration Act with respect to Crown corporations, is a legislative initiative taken in a subject area that is dominant in the minds of all Canadians and particularly in the minds of those involved in the economic scene.

What is really astonishing is that the Government opposite wants to invoke closure on a debate that is so important that it has ramifications on economic, social and numerous other aspects of the country. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has accused the people on this side of the House of delaying tactics. These are not delaying tactics, Mr. Speaker. We are carrying out our responsibility as we should against bad legislation.

Crown corporations have played a very large role in the economic, social and cultural development of Canada. In fact, in recent years the Liberal Government opposite has allowed the Crown corporation phenomenon to manifest itself into an economic monster that is uncontrolled in spending, is self-reproducing and is lacking any accountability to Parliament or to the people of Canada.

When most Canadians think of Crown corporations, they think of Air Canada, CBC and Petro-Canada. How many Canadians know the real extent of Crown corporation infestation into the private sector of our economy? The Crown corporations disease afflicts our economy like a horrible cancer. The Auditor General compared the proliferation of Crown corporations to an enormous iceberg floating lazily in the foggy Atlantic. I say that these corporations are like Titanics. They should be sinking but they are being propped up at the expense of Canadians.

How many Members opposite actually know how many Crown corporations exist? We have heard estimates of 400 or more, Mr. Speaker. How can it be that we must simply estimate the number of Crown corporations? Where is the control when we as parliamentarians do not even have an accurate count? We cannot get an accurate count, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we oppose Bill C-24 in its present state. The secretive, corrupt Government opposite wants to shroud this figure.

If Canadians really knew the extent of the proliferation of Crown corporations, they would be outraged. More significantly, if Canadians knew the real financial dilemma of the Crown corporation monster, there would be rioting in the streets. The Liberal Government opposite has mortgaged our

Financial Administration Act

nation's future and hidden the debt among the financial confusion-illusion of Crown corporations.

Bill C-24 does nothing to improve the situation. In fact, this Bill simply gives more decision-making power to the Government and more specifically to the Cabinet. This Bill is not as dangerous by what it clearly spells out as it is by what it does not clearly spell out. Every clause of the Bill which deals with substantive powers designates regulation-making authority to Cabinet. The Government does not want Parliament to see the powers that it has. It would rather hide these powers from the people.

In his opening remarks on Bill C-24, the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson) stated:

This Bill gives huge regulation-making powers to the Government. As such, it is typical of this Government's excessive desire for secrecy and unbounded administrative discretion in running the affairs of government, insulated from any parliamentary or public scrutiny and control.

The desire to maintain the secrecy of incompetence is clearly defined by the Minister responsible for the CDIC, an appointment from the other place, the Minister of State for Social Development who denounced the exposure of a further loss by de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited of another $313 million by 1988. This situation is clearly defined in the May 14 issue of Maclean's magazine. Because of this exposure which has made it possible for Canadians to be told what they should know, the Minister is requesting an RCMP investigation into the affair. That is totally disgusting, Mr. Speaker. Here again, he is trying to conceal the real story from Canadians.

This clearly points out the corruption of the Government opposite. It wants to hide its mismanagement. It wants to increase the deficit and does not want to be accountable. It even saw fit to give $155,000 in bonuses to the incompetents who run some of these Crown corporations. The Government is deceiving Canadians today and stealing the future of young Canadians by creating a debt that will take generations to remove.

Government Members are the mismanagers of this century. They speak of technology. Yes, we do want new technology, Mr. Speaker, but at what expense? They are trying to compete in an area in which they are totally outclassed. Let us develop our new technologies in areas we know best, like agriculture and forestry. Let us develop technology where we have the edge and not where we are trailing. We would like to protect jobs, Mr. Speaker, but mismanagement by Government Members along with their inability to cope with the situation will lead to the loss of jobs.

I would like to speak briefly on something about which the Government has not shown that it knows very much, and that is accountability. Accountability is what Bill C-24 is purporting to bring to the Canadian scene. This Bill, however, is a continuation of the horror story of Crown corporation mismanagement. The Auditor General has pointed this out but the Government opposite simply ignores him.

Yes, we are losing credibility on the world scene because of the Government's gross mismanagement. Devalued dollars and

May 22, 1984

Financial Administration Act

high interest rates are all part of the Liberals' disastrous policies and programs. Bill C-24 in its present state is a continuation of those programs.

Under this legislation, the Cabinet will be given the power to appoint the chief executive officers of Crown corporations. Boards of directors will be transformed into some kind of powerless advisory boards. This is simply designed to allow the patronage treadmill, powered by the Liberal Party, to run on. The Liberal Government has used Crown corporations as havens for all of its flacks, hacks and hit-men. Bill C-24 does nothing to control these little piglets who are at the Liberal trough.

In closing, as the newest Member of this House and one who has just come out of the business world and has had to face high interest rates and knows what businesspeople are still facing, I would like to say that this Bill does nothing more than add to the dilemma. We must defeat this Bill at any cost.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
LIB

Maurice Brydon Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board)

Liberal

Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the chance to say a few words in the debate this afternoon on Bill C-24. Second reading is usually a time to consider the general principles of a Bill. Prior to today's sitting, the House has spent 23.5 hours on the Bill, which represents approximately six sitting days; perhaps seven days if we count the debate on time allocation. By my count, over 100 speakers from both sides of the House have contributed to the debate. Yet, opposition Members argue that we should spend more and more time on this Bill. It would seem to me that we have gone beyond the stage of second reading and approval in principle. We must get the Bill into committee for detailed study. I hope we will be doing that very shortly, after the vote this afternoon. Surely endless and interminable debate at second reading when amendments cannot be made, with the exception of the amendment which we are debating now, the six-month hoist, is a useless exercise. We need to get into detailed study of this Bill at committee stage.

I heard the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), as well as the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) ask how many Crown corporations are there. They suggested the Government will not reveal this. At this time I would like to point out to the House, and especially to Members opposite, that on May 8 the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) issued a booklet to every Member of Parliament and to the general public entitled, Crown Corporations and Other Canadian Government Corporate Interests. The booklet-and every Member should take the time to read it-reveals the name of each company, the address of its head office, the name of the parent company, or of the Minister through which it reports to Parliament, because some companies are entities which are similar to government departments. The booklet also provides the year in which the company was incorporated, its statutory authority, the fiscal year-end of the corporation, the name of its auditor

and a description of its mandate. If Hon. Members would take the time to read this booklet-

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
PC

Donald Frank Mazankowski

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Mazankowski:

How many are there?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
LIB

Maurice Brydon Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board)

Liberal

Mr. Foster:

It is issued to every Member, including the Hon. Member opposite.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
PC

Donald Frank Mazankowski

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Mazankowski:

I have it.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
LIB

Maurice Brydon Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board)

Liberal

Mr. Foster:

Well, all you have to do is look at page 3 and you will see that there are 67 parent corporations and 127 subsidiaries. As well, there are many mixed and joint ventures. If the Hon. Member who is interjecting took the time to think of large integrated companies such as PetroCan, Air Canada and CN, he would realize that it is much more practical for large commercial enterprises to have subsidiaries to oversee specific projects. PetroCan is involved in dozens and dozens of joint ventures in which there is federal Government investment, but it is often a minority position dealing with exploration and drilling for oil. Hon. Members who are concerned about this issue should carefully read the documents which they have in their offices.

Another issue which has often been raised by the Opposition is the question of the independence and the integrity of cultural corporations such as the CBC, the National Film Board, the Canadian Film Development Corporation and the Canada Council. The Bill clearly spells out that commercial corporations will not be subjected to government directives with regard to their programs, the people they finance or the people whom they assist in the arts. Yet, this is constantly raised as a big issue. When the Bill gets to committee stage, I think these Members should come to the committee, but first they should read the Bill and be sure in their own minds that in fact it does exempt those cultural organizations from directives and regulations.

We should stop and think what the Bill really does. It has been spelled out many times by Members from this side, that clearly it clarifies the role of government, of Parliament, of the Minister responsible for the individual Crown corporation, the role of the board of directors and the general management of Crown corporations. The schedules to the Bill set out a regime for the definition of Crown corporations. Schedule C, Part I, sets out the Crown corporations which require parliamentary appropriations and which are generally not in competition with the marketplace. Schedule C, Part II, sets out Crown corporations such as PetroCan, CN and Air Canada, in which most of the subsidiaries are found. That is logical and it is to be expected. They are not dependent on parliamentary appropriations. So, there is a logical regime for identifying the various classes of Crown corporations.

This Bill gives Parliament the role of authorizing the creation of a directly held Crown corporation-that is a parent Crown corporation-and to change existing mandates. In other words, if an existing Crown corporation wants to change its mandate and do things which are not now authorized by its Act of Parliament, it would have to come back to Parliament to make those changes. As well, Crown corporations which are

May 22, 1984

to be disposed of, will have to be disposed of by an Act of Parliament. The Bill provides for parliamentary control of Crown corporations through appropriations. It provides two regimes for the establishment of Crown corporations. One is through the Canada Business Corporations Act. That Act would not only regulate the establishment of the corporation, but it would bring a resolution before the House which would outline what the powers and the prerogatives of that corporation would be. It provides for 30 days of study in committee and another seven hours of debate in the House. As well, Crown corporations could be established in the future by a special Act of Parliament, as were Petro-Can, Canagrex, and other Crown corporations which have been established in the last three or four years. The Bill gives Parliament direct control over the establishment of new parent Crown corporations.

One of the most important parts of the Bill is that Parliament would have a continuous flow of pertinent information laid before it. If Members opposite had read the Bill they would have realized this. The information would be a summary of the corporate plans, including the operating and capital budgets, annual reports, and directives to Crown corporations, which would be tabled every year. A consolidated report by the President of the Treasury Board outlining the operations of all Crown corporations would also be placed before Parliament. These reports would automatically be referred to the standing committees.

This Bill goes a long way in answering many of the complaints which have in the past been put before the House by the Opposition, by the Auditor General and by others. The President of the Treasury Board and myself, as his Parliamentary Secretary, have made it clear that we are anxious to move on to committee stage. We are anxious to hear recommendations and suggestions to strengthen and make the Bill more effective in controlling Crown corporations. I hope that we will be doing that after the vote later this afternoon.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
PC

Donald Frank Mazankowski

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member who preceded me in debate, and I hoped he would specifically document the number of Crown corporations which have been included in the booklet to which he referred. I believe it is quite apparent that things have got out of control when one looks at that document which was released.

It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, that whenever this Government brings in a piece of legislation which is controversial and inadequate, rather than dealing with those inadequacies and controversies it simply stonewalls, runs for cover and moves closure. There are obviously some defects and major deficiencies in this piece of legislation. I sat in the House last Friday, Mr. Speaker, and you were here when we passed four or five very significant pieces of legislation. They were debated and dealt with at all stages. The fact of the matter is that they were not controversial. This Bill is controversial because it is insufficient to meet the objectives which it purports to meet,

Financial Administration Act

namely, the strengthening of the control and accountability of Crown corporations. This Bill does not meet those objectives. With all the exemptions and regulations which are attached thereto, it is clearly ineffective in fulfilling those objectives.

I believe the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) when he spoke on this piece of legislation called this Bill completely insufficient and irresponsible. He went on to point out that while it covers the main Crown corporations and their subsidiaries, of which there are now 195, the legislation does not cover the 112 Crown corporations which are mixed joint enterprises and their subsidiaries. I repeat, this legislation does not cover 112 mixed enterprises and their subsidiaries. Also, with its regulations and exemptions there are enough loopholes in this legislation to drive a truck through. This Bill will not achieve the desired objectives we all want in this House.

This Bill clearly demonstrates a lack of will and desire on the part of the Government to deal effectively with Crown corporations. It wants this legislation confused. It wants a situation or environment where there can be manipulation and ballyhoo. That is really all part of this Government's whole claim to fame. With the loopholes included in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, I tell you that I cannot see any sizeable improvement in the control and accountability of Crown corporations. It has really missed the boat. I believe the current situation as it relates to Crown corporations in Canada was well outlined in a Globe and Mail article on May 7, 1983, written by Judy Steed, and I quote:

By and large, most of the Crowns are poorly managed, drawing on Government money as if it's a bottomless pit, responsible to ministers who don't know what they're doing, with boards of directors stacked with patronage appointments.

I do not see anything in this Bill which would change my mind about that very accurate assessment of the way things are right now.

The Auditor General has pointed out that the proliferation of Crown corporations, their subsidiaries, the subsidiaries of those subsidiaries, the mixed enterprises and their subsidiaries, is really tantamount to a form of subgovernment with no effective parliamentary control.

In the press release issued by the President of the Treasury Board on March 15, he outlined basically the objectives. The first objective was that Parliament would be required to approve the creation, mandate and financing of a parent Crown corporation. I would like to deal with that, Mr. Speaker, because I believe this Government is not really serious in this regard.

VIA rail was enacted with a stroke of the pen by a $1 item in the Appropriations Act in 1977. Literally everyone in this country has said that VIA rail needs a legislative mandate. It needs a legislative framework. It needs to know what is its mandate. When we engaged in the task force on rail passenger service after the 20 per cent unilateral cutback, we recommended that VIA rail legislation be brought before this House of Commons forthwith. As a matter of fact, I will quote the third recommendation of the Senate which was engaged in a very extensive review of the operations of VIA rail as follows:

May 22, 1984

Financial Administration Act

The Committee recommends that an enactment providing a clear and all encompassing legislative framework for VTA Rail Canada Inc., and in consequence for passenger rail service in this country is an essential requirement.

This has been going on since 1977, yet these recommendations have fallen on deaf ears. The report of the Standing Committee on Transportation which was presented to this House on April 17, 1984, had this to say:

From the point of view of the Committee, it is incomprehensible that seven years have elapsed since VIA came into existence without the Government's taking any legislative action to confer a statutory mandate upon it. The Committee believes that the absence of a mandate has jeopardized the functioning of VIA and this, combined with the financial planning difficulties resulting from Costing Order No. R-6313, makes very difficult future planning by VIA to achieve a viable passenger rail service.

No one in this country, Mr. Speaker, denies the fact that we need a good rail passenger system. However, everyone is crying for a legislative mandate which would allow VIA rail to function in a businesslike manner. This Government, however, refuses to give it this mandate. It comes on with a piece of legislation which really says, "From now on, trust us. We are going to incorporate the kind of legislation necessary so that we will be forced to legislate any Crown corporations which we want to bring into existence". I would give the Government full credit if it were to bring forward a new VIA rail act to this House of Commons. I know it has been drafted on many occasions, yet the Government refuses to do so.

I would like to deal just briefly with Petro-Canada. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, when we were debating Petro-Canada, whether they would have done so, because the raison d'etre for creation of Petro-Canada International. I doubt very much whether they would have done so, because the raison d'etre for Petro-Canada at the time of debate was quite different than what in fact has occurred in reality. Today, Mr. Speaker, there are some 75 subsidiaries and joint enterprises functioning under Petro-Canada. They multiply like rabbits. It is incredible.

I would like to deal just briefly with another very important concern I have, a concern I am sure is shared by Hon. Members opposite. It is with respect to the responsibility of a Minister in so far as the discharge of his mandate under legislation, and I refer here to the National Transportation Act, by which it is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport to ensure that we have a sound, effective and efficient transportation system in this country. On the other hand he has a mandate to see that Air Canada, in this case a Crown corporation, functions in a proper fashion, ensuring that the best interests of Air Canada are served.

We have a situation now, Mr. Speaker, with the policy of deregulation announced by the Minister of Transport where there is some very real potential for conflict. As a matter of fact, we now have the Minister suggesting that he is going to instruct Air Canada to refrain from competitive pricing and scheduling practices which are not also engaged in by privately owned carriers. I see that, Mr. Speaker, as a direct conflict to the policy objective which he has enunciated, that is, to provide consumers with a wider range of price-service options better adapted to their differing needs; to invigorate the industry; to

promote national integration through increased domestic air travel; to improve the airline industries' efficiency and productivity and, of course, to bring down prices for the consumer.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that during the course of the committee hearings the potential conflict of the Minister, when he is carrying out the provisions of a broad act, such as the National Transportation Act, as compared to the responsibilities he must undertake in the discharge as the shareholder of a Crown corporation like Air Canada, will be examined and explored. I think this is an area that could cause some confusion. It certainly has the potential for conflict. The Standing Committee on Transport is now seized with the responsibility of dealing with this issue, and I would think it most important that this avenue be explored.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
PC

John Albert Gamble

Progressive Conservative

Mr. John Gamble (York North):

Mr. Speaker, when Bill C-24 was initially subjected to time limitation, I had an opportunity to make some comments of a very brief nature with respect to the Bill and my opposition to it. I welcome this opportunity to deal with the motion brought on by my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) which has the effect, if passed, of delaying second reading of Bill C-24 for a sufficient period of time that, under normal circumstances, would permit this House to experience an election. That would naturally obviate the need for the passage of this legislation.

It should be clearly apparent to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House generally, that my colleagues and I have demonstrated our revulsion to this particular piece of legislation. I listened with some interest to the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) who, as have some of his colleagues previously, commented that the debate on second reading was a useless exercise, and then proceeded to participate in the debate. If indeed speaking on second reading is useless, then I wonder why we bother with it at all? In the name of expediency I can well see this Liberal administration deciding that debate in itself is a waste of time and something to be discouraged and eliminated. After all, if we did not have to confront the public, if Members were whipped into shape so they all said the same thing, nothing could leak out to the public, and the media would not have an opportunity to deal with some of the problems confronting society and, in particular, this Government.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I reject out of hand any suggestion that speaking in this House is a useless exercise. In the event that there are other Liberal Members of Parliament who intend to speak further on this matter, they will hopefully reflect upon the logical conclusion that should be drawn from comments and urgings of that nature. The logical conclusion ought well to be that their services here may be eliminated if we do not have to speak at all. I know they say that we shall go into committee and that in committee we shall deal clause by clause with every provision of this Bill in an astute and reasonable fashion. It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that we have participated in that process, away from the television cameras

May 22, 1984

mind you, and we know that what the Government does in this House with respect to time allocation or closure is done in Committee through a voting process rapidly undertaken with respect to each individual clause of the Bill. There is no point in trying to deceive anyone as to what ultimately will happen. The Government Members will have their instructions and do as they are told. The senior public servants have determined that this legislation is exactly what they want, and their minions will carry out their will.

The legislation grants to the Government, through order in council in particular, the control of Crown corporations, those marvellous instruments whereby this Liberal administration has been able to create sinecures for their great friends while robbing the treasury and reaching into the pockets of average Canadians. It is principally those two concerns that lead my colleagues and I to oppose this Bill so vigorously. I know the purpose of the Bill is spelled out as being to control Crown corporations. Clause 1 says that, but then it proceeds to grant the control of Crown corporations to Governor-in-Council. The Governor-in-Council shall do this and do that and Parliament shall do very little.

The last time I spoke on this Bill, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that if it is looked at as establishing some form of accountability, one must ask: "Accountable to whom if not to Parliament? Accountable to the Governor-in-Council". Therein will lie the power of appointment and the fixing of salaries.

It is particularly interesting to note that the Government pamphlet on Crown corporations and other Government controlled corporate interests, published in March of 1984, lists a very significant number of features which apply to Crown corporations, except the salaries of the senior officers thereof. We are told that all of that information is secret and sacrosanct. It must be kept confidential. I ask why? Would it alarm the public to know what some of the senior officers of these Crown corporations, reaching into the public treasury and the pockets of Canadians, draw in salary for badly administering the affairs of the corporations themselves?

One great problem that surely cannot escape the attention of Liberal Members of this House is that there is no incentive to be productive or cut costs. There is no incentive to treat the assets of these corporations with the same attention and care that the individual directors would give to their own affairs. That is because there is no beneficial interest other than in the salaries which are paid to the senior bureaucrats, these quasibureaucrats appointed by Governor-in-Council to positions at salaries that could reach $227,900 a year. That, of course, is subject to bonus increases.

While we heard of the financial agonies suffered by Cana-dair and de Havilland, we also learned that certain officers of those aviation companies were drawing bonuses of over $115,000. What were they for, for producing losses? The answer, I suppose, by Government officials, is that in the event those bonuses were not paid those losses would have been greater. Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, when a Crown corporation competes with the private sector there is no stimulus or motivation to create the kind of profit we expect from the private sector.

Financial Administration Act

Those private sector profits generate the wealth which permits taxes to be imposed and services to be rendered by Government. These competing private sector Crown corporations, rather than contributing to the wealth and growth of this nation, are dragging it down. It is because of that, and the sinecure appointments, that we are most concerned about having real scrutiny and real accountability to this place, and that is absent from this Bill.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
PC

Allan Bruce McKinnon

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):

Mr. Speaker, it is not with great pleasure that I rise to speak for the second time on this Bill. The Liberal Party is indulging in a process of holding back some good legislation of which both sides of this House are in favour. In fact we are very much in favour of having a Bill to increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement for single old age pensioners come forward. However, I believe the Government now intends to allow that to drag over to the end of the session in case we have an election, at which time it will get sanctimonious as can be and pretend it was someone else's fault that we did not pass that Bill. We are very keen to pass it at any time.

This Bill is about Crown corporations. I have done some reading about the history of Crown corporations in Canada. One wonders why we are creating more and more Crown corporations year after year. I suspect it is because of the mindsets of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray). They experience a certain amount of pleasurable anticipation whenever a company or corporation in the private sector gets into difficulty. They see it as a golden opportunity to take it over and run it as a Crown corporation. With all the gigantic intellect which they have, they feel they will be able to make it into a paying concern. Some of the front benchers of the Government act more like senior civil servants than they do like representatives of the people. These senior civil servant types sometimes think they would have become fabulously wealthy had they gone into the private sector rather than into the Government sector. Through Cana-dair, CNR and other corporations they attempt to prove this fact. So far they have had a remarkable lack of success.

The debate as to whether we should do something to stop the proliferation of Crown corporations has been going on for more than 10 years. The need to clarify the purposes for which these corporations are formed and the need to make them accountable is well recognized. However, these needs never seem to be promoted in the form of legislation. Our Party has moved a motion for six months' hoist of this Bill simply because it represents one more failure of the Government to address the real issues surrounding the Crown corporations which are wholly or partially owned by the Government of Canada.

I would like to quote a very distinguished former Member of this House, the Hon. Robert Stanfield. On March 26, 1973 the Liberals were introducing a Bill to establish the Canada Development Corporation. At the time Mr. Stanfield said:

May 22, 1984

Financial Administration Act

The Canada Development Corporation was established, so far as I can see, without any strategy except the establishment of another investment company in Canada in which the Government would have some interest. It is meaningless in this sense, and for that reason I oppose it, Mr. Speaker. For that reason, I see little significance in it, despite the repetition of Ministers of the Crown that it is a vehicle to enable Canadians to invest in Canada. It might even be that some people will be hurt in the process.

He went on to say:

-the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has taken the position that transfer of shares of Polymer Corporation to the Canada Development Corporation is just some kind of intergovernmental transaction. I am sorry the President of the Treasury Board is not here at the moment; but that, of course, was not an honest statement-

That is the fuzziness we run into whenever the Government brings in another Bill. It seems to feel it would be a terrible thing to be open about the purposes of a Bill and why it wants yet another Crown corporation. This Bill comes a little closer to clarity if one reads between the lines. It says that this is:

An Act to provide for the financial administration of the Government of Canada, the establishment and maintenance of the accounts of Canada and the control of Crown corporations.

That is a change made to the Financial Administration Act by this Bill. I think it is a confession by the Government that the Crown corporations are out of control, and this Act is supposed to bring them into control. It is the lack of disclosure which bothers us on this side as well as the lack of a clear definition of the role of Parliament. In fact, Parliament is almost invariably left out of this.

Parliament is supposed to review annual reports, summaries of corporate plans, budgets, and Government directives to Crown corporations. However, Parliament will not see the plans and budgets of these corporations in their entirety. Nor is there any time limit for the tabling of these documents by the responsible Minister. The Bill provides that complete audit reports must be prepared on a regular basis, but does not ensure that these will be made available to Parliament in their entirety.

When looking for what will be made available and what will not, we find that the new requirements for accountability are offset by other provisions to restrict the activities of auditors and examiners, ensuring that little, if any, controversial information would be released to Parliament. Each Crown corporation would have to establish an audit committee to oversee any audits or special examinations that are carried out. The audit committee would protect the interests of the board of directors. Of that we can be sure.

The Bill neglects a number of significant issues, including the privileges and immunities of Crown corporations with respect to other legislation such as the Combines Investigation Act. What will be the impact of the long promised competition legislation on the activities of the many Crown corporations which have complete or near monopolies in their markets? The Bill does not address the issue of placing public servants on the boards of Crown corporations, nor does it give Parliament any powers to oversee the appointment of the chief executive officers of these corporations. The power rests entirely with the Government in Council, the cabinet. We have seen lately what they are likely to do with a Crown corporation.

Tired hacks of the Liberal Party who have been defeated and driven out of this Chamber, or have retired of their own volition, have gone to what turns out to be far greener grounds. The former Minister of National Defence, Mr. Danson, was appointed to the board of directors of de Havilland. He has now received another plum, appointment as the Canadian Consul-General to Boston. His salary range is $60,870 to $71,550. Considering what the management of most Crown corporations get paid, he has taken a considerable cut in salary.

It is difficult to tell, Mr. Speaker, how the Government determines what shall be a Crown corporation. In reviewing Schedule I of this Bill, it is rather interesting to try to determine whether a Crown corporation should be a board. The National Energy Board is a regulatory body and not a Crown corporation. However, the Agricultural Stabilization Board is a Crown corporation, and the Atomic Energy Control Board is a Crown corporation, while the Canadian RadioTelevision and Telecommunications Commission is a regulatory body. They are all controlled by the cabinet of the country. We feel that Parliament should have more say about them.

To give the House an idea of the different types of organizations within Crown corporations, I will refer to Schedule B of this Bill. I see reference to the Agricultural Stabilization Board. The Canada Employment and Immigration Commission is a Crown corporation. The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety is a Crown corporation. Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is actually a corporation. The next one is an odd one; the Director of Soldier Settlement. I am not sure whether the Director is a Crown corporation or the Soldier Settlement Organization is a Crown corporation. The Veterans' Land Act is a corporation. The Economic Council of Canada is a Crown corporation. The National Museums of Canada is a Crown corporation. And last, but by no means least known, is Loto Canada Incorporated. It is a Crown corporation which came in with a very fuzzy charter. It is impossible to find out how it is going to operate, when and where, or whether it will be legal.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink

PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED

LIB

Harold Thomas Herbert (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Status of Women (a) Native women's rights, (b) Women's attendance at Edmonton conference; the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) (a)

May 22, 1984

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

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED
Permalink

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet (for Mr. Gray) that Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates; and on the amendment of Mr. Cros-bie (p. 3688).


PC

Thomas Scott Fennell

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak again to this Bill, particularly with respect to the motion moved by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). The point that we are trying to make is that we are not satisfied with this Bill. If the Government were given six months it could possibly make some improvements and return with the legislation that is required to get control of Crown corporations. I suggest the Government should consider this proposal seriously as a result of the complaints it has heard about this Bill, even from some people in the better Crown corporations who have said that it is inadequate.

This Bill should be set aside for Government reconsideration. I believe this whole matter should be discussed in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs because we deal with many such issues in this committee. We have dealt with the problems of many Crown corporations. I would suggest that perhaps the committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs is more aware of how Crown corporations can fail the citizens of this country. A six-month hoist would allow the Government to consider amendments that would strengthen the proposals in this Bill, and allow it to enact legislation that would keep these Crown corporations under control.

That lack of control is most evident in the recent example of de Havilland. de Havilland is having an extremely difficult time, yet during this period when it lost hundreds of millions of dollars the senior executives have received bonuses. I do not believe that any member of the House would consider that a sound move by the directors of de Havilland. It is absurd that a corporation which should be making money, but is losing money because of bad management, should pay its executive a bonus.

Financial Administration Act

There should be measures within this Bill dealing with management of Crown corproations. We have reviewed many cases where it has been shown that there has been total incompetence by management as well as interference by civil servants. These civil servants are the associate deputy minister, an assistant deputy minister and the deputy minister. They become involved in the affairs of something about which they know nothing. They are civil servants who have never worked in the real world. This Bill should take that fact into account. It does not.

Let me suggest some other changes that are required in this legislation. Every Crown corporation should be subject to a comprehensive audit, an audit that cannot be modified by the Minister in charge of a corporation. A cabinet Minister, no matter what Party is in power, should not be permitted to change a comprehensive audit.

Unfortunately, this Bill does nothing to require subsidiaries of Crown corporations to be accountable to the House of Commons. Consequently, there will be a proliferation of new small Crown corporations. We will see mini Petro-Canada's, and mini de Havilland's breeding throughout the country, resulting in a total loss of control or understanding of these corporations.

I believe some of these Crown corporations could be run successfully. It would be ideal if they could be run properly and then sold to the public of this country as positive and strong investments. We have not addressed the structural problem of Crown corporations and their operations. We have not dealt with the fact that they are immune from any Combines investigation. I do not believe Crown corporations should be treated differently from those in the private sector; whatever is good for the goose is good for the gander.

This Bill should make it clear that there is no room for public servants on the board. The committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs has discovered that this has created chaos in several instances. The Bill should allow for parliamentary scrutiny and total in depth review of the three to five-year programs and budgets of Crown corporations. These Crown corporations always come before Parliament after they have lost hundreds of millions of dollars. We are never forewarned about the dangers into which these corporations may be falling.

The CDIC was created by the Government but never approved by the House. The legislation respecting that corporation is sitting on the Order Paper today as Bill C-25. Parliament was never consulted or given an opportunity to consider this Crown corporation in the House or in committee. We only learned of CDIC when we were advised at a hearing into Canadair and de Havilland that it would be representing those two companies. Furthermore, the officers of CDIC had no knowledge of what had transpired in those corporations. Yet the Government was there to bail out those companies.

One change in particular that is required in this legislation concerns the 30-day restriction on a committee to debate any new Crown corporation. I sit on committees and know that 30 days can be divided in many ways. It could be an hour and a

May 22, 1984

Financial Administration Act

half a day for two days a week. Is that 30 days considered on a calendar basis or is it 30 sitting days of at least four and a half or six hours a day?

Furthermore, how can the Government introduce closure on any new Crown corporation legislation by stating that there will be no more than seven hours of debate? If we were to consider an extreme situation, such as at Christmas, a committee could sit for an hour and a half for five days to make up seven and a half hours of debate in committee. We could then be told that we must restrain debate to seven hours in the House of Commons.

Not only are there weaknesses in this Bill, it contains flagrant violations of the rights of Canadians. We must not accept this Bill but address the changes to it that are required. We have moved this motion for a six-month hoist so that we may give it some input and let the Government know what will be satisfactory to Canadians.

I would like to suggest that we create on a permanent basis a joint Senate-House committee strictly for Crown corporations. When you realize that there are 400 or 500 Crown corporations to deal with, that means a lot of time. We should be presented with three to five-year working programs. We should be presented with an annual budget before the year starts. Final audited statements should be presented subsequently. As a result we would have an opportunity to grasp whether the corporation should be sold, whether it should have new management, be wound up, or whatever. But we do not have enough information to make a judgment, spending only a few days in committee.

I understand that my allocated time has expired. I would like to thank the House for allowing me to speak for a few minutes. I think it is very important to defeat this Bill on second reading because it is not productive. There are too many imperfections in it which must be changed.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
NDP

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse

New Democratic Party

Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak for the second time on this Bill. We are now debating a motion to grant leave of the House to study this Bill for an additional six months before putting it into effect. That makes sense to our Party. What we are doing is initiating a very great change in the methodology of setting up Crown corporations. More important, we are deciding how those corporations will be made responsible to Canada's shareholders through the House of Commons and Parliament.

I think we realize, in this corner at least, that to only a small degree what we are doing is changing the rules for establishing a corporation. A number of years ago, shortly after I arrived here, we changed the methodology for establishing corporations in the public sector.

As I understand the history of corporations and the involvement of the Crown, at one time it was the Crown-I am talking now of 400 or 500 years ago-which granted leave to a group of individuals to establish a corporation. It provided those individuals with some basic rights and privileges. They

were privileges then and they are now. I will spend a little time during remarks dealing with some of the privileges.

One of the first Crown corporations of importance in Canada was the Hudson's Bay Company. It was granted a charter by the King of England which the Hudson's Bay Company gave the right and the privilege to trade in goods and furs in a very vast territory, part of what is now Canada and a little of what became part of the United States. That was a very great privilege, Mr. Speaker. Subsequent corporations also had very great privileges not afforded ordinary citizens and unincorporated small business. For one thing, corporations live forever. They never have to pay estate taxes or come to an end when an accounting has to be made. Consequently, when taxes are deferred in a corporate sense because there is no end to a corporation; the taxes can be continually deferred and are in essence never paid. When it comes to raising funds, corporations have the advantage. Under our tax laws they can raise money through publicly traded shares. There is an opportunity to participate in the Indexed Security Investment Plan, ISIP, which has the effect of lowering the cost of that money to the corporation and grants a consequent advantage as well to the investor. These are advantages which individuals attempting to run a business do not have. As well, corporations in the private sector have lower tax rates. Privileges granted are varied and many.

It was only a few years ago, within my memory, that to start a private corporation one required the assent of the Crown, through this House and through the Senate; later, it became one or the other. No longer is that assent required. Private corporations can be established without coming to one of the Houses of Parliament.

I suppose in fairness we can say that there appears to be some attempt by Government to make that same route available for the establishment of a Crown corporation. There appears to be some movement in this Bill to spend less time going to the House of Commons or the Senate to establish a Crown corporation. We will not argue a great deal about that since the principles and the practice has changed for the other corporations in our economy. Perhaps it is time to allow the same rights and privileges to Crown corporations. We do see some problems, however, when it comes to control of these Crown corporations.

In theory, private corporations are controlled by the shareholders who meet occasionally to select directors, then direct the business of the corporation, usually through the chief executive officer who is responsible to the board of directors, who in turn are supposedly responsible to the shareholders. With Crown corporations that chain of command is much more fuzzy. I think most of the speeches in the last several days on this Bill have brought that out. Members have pointed out rightly that it is very difficult sometimes for the shareholders in Crown corporations to get information, and that the appointment of the chief executive officer in most instances is by the cabinet rather than by the appointed board of directors. These practices create the potential for some problems. Therefore, we think it is worthwhile for this House to spend some

May 22, 1984

time in committee attempting to work out the apparent problems, and to try to make the rules very similar for both kinds of corporations.

In passing, I think I would be remiss if I did not point out that the publicly traded corporations also have problems with regard to shareholder information. I am sure the shareholders of Dome Petroleum did not know how much trouble Dome was in until after the fact, just as this House acting on behalf of the Canadian shareholders did not know how much trouble Canadair and de Havilland were in until after the fact. It works both ways, Mr. Speaker.

When we study the Bill for the next six months, as I hope we will be able to, I hope those facts will be remembered and considered when methodologies are being worked out for Crown corporations.

It has been mentioned a number of times that the functions we require Crown corporations to perform vary sometimes. Crown corporations are set up to augment our cultural diversity. We have the Canada Council, for instance. We have been attempting to increase the Canadian content of our theatre and performing arts. We have established a movie industry through the National Film Board. We have the CBC. Originally, these corporations were set up, not to make a profit or to perform a commercial service but to be an extension of the cultural life of this country and to augment that cultural heritage.

We do have a number of Crown corporations which are clearly set up to provide an economic service. Those do an excellent job, particularly when they are performing services that we all must use. A Crown corporation has the economic advantage of being able to supply that service without the requirement of charging enough for the service to generate a profit for the shareholders.

The shareholders of Crown corporations, namely the people of Canada, are quite in agreement. They will simply accept good services from Crown corporations; they are not interested in generating great profits. In fact they are attempting to have the services performed at cost, since all of us use the services of those corporations.

It is suitable to study the Bill for an additional six months so that the method of reporting to the House can be clarified and better understood, not only by Members of the House but by members of the public. The role of naming an auditor, which usually rests with shareholders, should be clarified. Members of Parliament have at their disposal the Auditor General of Canada. It has not been made clear in this legislation that the Auditor General can be utilized as our auditor, whether he will be called in or whether he has the option of moving in and conducting comprehensive audits of corporations. This should be made clear to Members of the House and to the public so that we understand what will be the role of Crown corporations in the future.

Financial Administration Act

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
PC

Alexander Bell Patterson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):

Mr. Speaker, we are reminded on the first page of Bill C-24 that this is an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.

I should like to begin by saying that the arrogance of this Government in dealing with national business is boundless. In applying closure to the debate on Bill C-24 it continues to exhibit, even in its death throes, a complete absence of any appreciation for the rights of Canadians to understand fully the purpose of legislation through the ordinary process of unhampered discussion in the House. At a time when the Government's credibility is practically zero, it seems strange that its Members continue to maintain the attitude, "Well, the Government knows best". This stance has been the Government's hallmark throughout past years.

I believe there is a place for Crown corporations in Canada. This is particularly true when the private sector is either unable or unwilling to co-operate in the implementation of programs to fulfil legitimate government policy. Under such circumstances it is preferable that government enter the field as a competitor rather than in a monopoly position. It appears that the present Government has completely lost the capacity to inspire Canadians to invest in worthwhile investments that would move the nation forward confidently and voluntarily. It pushes forward in a bull-headed and brutal fashion to force through programs which are often misguided and harmful to the economy. Then of course it can draw upon the taxpayers' purse to meet its financial obligations. In my view the role of Government is to administer the affairs of the country in accordance with the will of the people. This is not the course that is being followed by the present Government.

As I think back to the time when I first heard about the details of the measure before us, it appeared that the Government was responding to the demand for some fundamental changes to the way in which it was dealing with the issue of Crown corporations. A closer appraisal of the proposed amendments in Bill C-24, however, showed that the changes at best were illusory. Over the past several years, successive Auditors General have severely reprimanded the Government for neglecting its responsibility by allowing Crown corporations free rein in the conduct of their business, to the extent that they now constitute a sub-government. As I have stated, any seeming improvement through the provisions of Bill C-24 is only a mirage.

Much has been said about the proliferation of Crown corporations. As I listened to the broadcast when the Bill was first introduced and the proposed amendments were outlined, I heard reference that in the future the creation of Crown corporations would require parliamentary approval by means of a special Act. At that time I said to my wife, who was listening to the program as well, that it appeared the Government was finally listening to the criticisms of the Opposition in the House and was now prepared to make some significant changes. However, I was wrong. It appears that parliamentary approval applies only to parent corporations, not to subsidiar-

May 22, 1984

Financial Administration Act

ies. It has been through these subsidiaries that the greatest proliferation has taken place. Therefore, it seems to me that the Government has side-stepped the opportunity and the responsibility to call a halt to the multiplicity of organizations that are set up, many of which compete against private industry in various sectors of the economy.

There is a fear that Bill C-24 could be interpreted to indicate that Ministers of the Crown may not be bound by its prohibition on the creation of parent corporations. As has been pointed out, Section 16 of the Interpretation Act indicates that no statute binds the Crown unless the statute specifically states that it is applicable to the Crown. It seems there is no clause in this Bill which expressly does this.

There are a great many serious weaknesses in the Bill before us. These have been pointed out in very clear terms. For instance, under the terms of Bill C-24, the so-called board of directors would be little more than an advisory agency, while the Cabinet would direct the affairs of the corporation by, as indicated by the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson) in his address on the Bill, appointing the auditor, approving by-laws and even making by-laws for the board, setting dividend policy and directing the board on the conduct of the corporation's business and affairs.

On different occasions my Leader has set out a very clear statement of policy in regard to Crown corporations. I regret there is not time to place them all on the record today. However, they have been propounded, explained and stated in various parts of the country. The basic principles as outlined by my Leader would do much to improve the situation as far as Crown corporations are concerned. They would bring to the people a sense of confidence, knowing that under these policies and under these principles Crown corporations, which have been a law unto themselves and have drawn so heavily upon the purses of the people, will finally be responsible and accountable, not just to the Government but to the House of Commons.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
LIB

John Leslie Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):

Mr. Speaker, I spoke in the debate earlier and I shall now speak to this amendment.

We have had eight full days of debate on Bill C-24, with 28 hours of debate during those eight days. We have heard from approximately 120 speakers on this particular Bill. We now find that the opposition still wants to put up more and more speakers to delay consideration of this Bill in committee.

Many of the issues raised by the opposition are issues that are rightfully dealt with by a Standing Committee where witnesses can be called, where the Bill can be scrutinized clause by clause and where individual issues can be dealt with in depth. However, the opposition refuses to let the Bill go to committee; rather, opposition Members wish to put up speaker after speaker.

Unfortunately, I must indicate that most of those speakers do not have a clue as to what they are talking about. In many cases, opposition Members have had speeches drafted for them

by others and they have parroted those words verbatim. Those speeches have been full of mistakes and errors.

Not 15 minutes ago, we heard the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) say that there are now 400 to 500 Crown corporations and that the number is growing by the day. About two weeks ago on May 8, Mr. Speaker, every Member of Parliament received a document entitled Crown Corporations and Other Canadian Government Corporate Interests. That document lists them all, Mr. Speaker. It lists parent corporations, subsidiaries, joint ventures and all of the corporate interests and Crown corporations of the Government of Canada.

This is the fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker. The number of parent Crown corporations, the kind of corporations of which Hon. Members opposite are so deathly afraid, does not add up to 400 to 500, 300 to 400 or 100 to 200. In fact, there are 67 such Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker. There are not 400 to 500 subsidiaries of parent Crown corporations. There are in fact 128 of them. The total number of parent corporations and wholly owned subsidiaries is 195, not 400 to 500; not some unknown number. The number is known and it is listed right here. Every Member of Parliament has had this document for over two weeks. The problem is that opposition Members do not take the time to read the documents they receive that are relevant to the debate that is going on in the House of Commons.

Let us talk about the numbers of subsidiary corporations of which the Crown owns less than 100 per cent; in other words, Crown corporations in which the Crown participates with some other agency or entity in the ownership. These corporations must be dealt with in a different fashion from wholly owned Crown corporations, must be dealt with in a somewhat more confidential manner as far as reporting goes because private interests as well as public interests are involved. That makes sense, Mr. Speaker, and the Bill provides for that. There are 30 such corporations of which the Crown owns more than 50 per cent and less than 100 per cent.

As well, Mr. Speaker, there are associate corporations. For example, Petro-Canada may enter into a joint venture with another corporation to develop an offshore well. In these cases, the Crown owns less than 50 per cent of the corporation and is a minority shareholder. There are 64 such corporations. There are 18 joint and mixed enterprises, Mr. Speaker. There are 195 Crown corporations in the sense most people know of them owned entirely by the Crown. There are an additional 112 other interests that the Crown owns through its Crown corporations or by other means, along with businesses, enterprises or other forms of agencies in Canada.

It is time that we come to a decision on this Bill at second reading stage. My gosh, we are not talking about third reading stage and we are not talking about making the Bill law. We are talking about passing in principle the notion that Crown corporations should be under greater control and should be more accountable. We are sending this Bill to committee so that we can look at its individual provisions. It is long since past the time for this House to come to a decision on Bill C-24.

May 22, 1984

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
LIB

Harold Thomas Herbert (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):

Order. It being 4:45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Order made Wednesday, May 16, 1984, to interrupt proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the Bill now before the House.

Therefore, the first question is on the following motion: Mr. Gray, seconded by Mrs. Begin, moves that Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.

And on the amendment of Mr. Crosbie (St. John's West), seconded by Mr. McMillan,-That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:

"Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation to

Crown corporations and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be not

now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months

hence."

The question is on the amendment.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this amendment?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink

May 22, 1984