Debates of April 24th, 1995

Message From The Senate

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-7, an act to accelerate the use of alternative fuels for motor vehicles.

The House resumed from March 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-263, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and other acts in consequence thereof (exempted crown corporations) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Financial Administration Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That notwithstanding any order of this House, any recorded division to be taken on Bill C-263 later this day be deferred until Tuesday, April 25 at 5.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

When Bill C-263 was last before the House the hon. member for St. Boniface had approximately five minutes remaining in debate.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to continue my address on the bill presented by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. As previously stated, I believe that the objectives of the bill are well intended. My colleagues and I are in favour of ensuring adequate accountability for all crown corporations. However, the proposed bill has a number of shortcomings which I will continue to review today.

The last time I spoke on the bill I examined some of the reasons for exemptions. Exemptions reflect some of the very special sensitivities in the relationship between the government and these particular corporations. Each has been created by a special act which carefully outlines a very specific mandate. For some the act sets out requirements for the administration of resources. This becomes of particular importance in ensuring the accountability among these crown corporations which provide, for example, grants. A case in point is the Canada Council.

It is of paramount importance that the Canada Council be permitted to freely select recipients of grants and that this be the public's perception. I am of the opinion that the artistic value of a work is not a political issue and that it is inappropriate for the government to set conditions in this area.

Similarly, I believe strongly in protecting the mandated freedom of the CBC in areas of programming and journalistic independence. This freedom led to the provision that the CBC also be exempted from part X in 1984.

I recognize that the hon. member deliberately left out the CBC in order to remove, as much as possible, contentious issues. My concern is that the reasons for granting exemption from part X for other corporations, such as the Canadian Wheat Board, present issues which may be viewed as equally contentious, especially by Canadians or groups of Canadians these corporations serve.

Should we not first hold comprehensive consultations with the affected parties to examine these issues in depth?

It appears to me the bill fails to recognize as much as it should that the unique mandates of the affected corporations require more serious consideration in developing an appropriate accountability framework.

Clearly there are reasons for some of these corporations to be agents rather than non-agents of the crown. There are also reasons why their employees are not public servants. Bill C-263, in my opinion, does not deal with the importance of these reasons sufficiently clearly.

Experience over the last 10 years has shown that generally there may be merit in bringing other corporations under a modified form of accountability framework similar to the regime now in place for the CBC. Bill C-263 does not provide for these modifications which I believe are necessary.

I am confident that additional efforts will be made by this government to balance improvements in accountability for exempt crown corporations with the desirable degree of independence. In fact, the bill assists us in doing this.

Owing to the reservations and inconsistencies in the approach reflected in Bill C-263-and I do not say that unkindly because I recognize that the hon. member did not have all of the resources available to him-I must declare that I cannot recommend support for this bill as presented in the House. However, I wish to state that, notwithstanding my opposition to the bill, the government is committed to sound financial management for all of its crown corporations. Improvements can always be sought and we will make them.

We recognize that the situation for the exempt crown corporations named in the hon. member's bill is unique and that the bill fails to adequately deal with that fact. This does not mean that we are blindly opposed to a re-examination of how to best ensure appropriate accountability.

The President of the Treasury Board will therefore communicate with his colleagues responsible for these corporations asking them to review once more the opportunities to improve the accountability system now in place for each of them. This examination process would be done on a case by case basis respecting the special needs of each corporation's mandate. It would include examining the need for changes to legislation paralleling the model for CBC if appropriate.

There are several ways to deal with this. I am confident that in partnership with the directors and managers of crown corporations, the government will continue to demonstrate a strong commitment to managing the corporations effectively and efficiently with due regard for all of the best and most sound principles of accountability to the taxpayer.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-263 ensures that the federal government is accountable to the Canadian taxpayer. I feel strongly that members from all sides of the House should rally in support of Bill C-263 so that we can honestly say that we have tried to respond to the wishes of the people who sent us here.

As members know, in the 1993 fiscal year crown corporations incurred losses totalling some $57 million. Their net borrowing from the Government of Canada amounted to $14.2 billion. Crown corporations received $4.6 billion from government through budgetary appropriations.

Our task in this Chamber is to ensure that every government department and agency be accountable for every tax dollar spent. I dare say that everyone in the House wants to be able to say to the people at home that we are responsible to the people who ultimately pay the bills: the Canadian taxpayer.

The auditor general has a key role to play in this regard. In many cases, which I will refer to in a moment, the auditor general has not only made available the exact facts and figures concerning the activities and performance of the federal government but the auditor general has been able to improve such activities and performance levels by dissecting and evaluating agencies and departments.

No shame is involved in the work performed by the auditor general. The auditor's detection of poor performance and recommendations is seen by Canadians as routine and to be expected. Canadian firms large and small perform audits on their activities and performance. Often audits show they are on the right track with objectives and sometimes they must swallow tough medicine to cure ailments detected in their business by such audits.

This is a fact of life and it should apply to government as well. Canadians expect their government to follow the good business practices followed in the private sector.

No one can deny the performance of auditors general in recent history. In fact progress has been made. The auditor general has the power to follow up on his recommendations. The result has been that in many cases Canadians are realizing better value for their tax dollars because of the efforts of the auditor general.

With reforms instituted in 1984, most crown corporations have operated within the accountability framework established under part X of the Financial Administration Act. Part X of the act requires each crown corporation to submit an annual report. The annual report, in addition to its financial statement and the auditor's report also presents information on how well the objectives of the corporation were reached during the reporting period. Second, crown corporations are expected to submit a corporate plan and third, budget summaries for tabling in Parliament. These are good measures. In my view these requirements are basic and simple. They are not unreasonable and yet we have a system in government in which crown corporations are not required to do these basics.

Canadians expect their tax dollars to be spent within this framework of accountability. When Canadians hear of money being spent by the federal government without the above criteria being met they become quite naturally suspicious.

There are good reasons for Canadians to feel this way. The Financial Administration Act could easily be made applicable to crown corporations listed in Bill C-263. There are 49 crown corporations. Bill C-263 deals with five which are exempted from the Financial Administration Act: the Canada Council, the Canadian Film Development Board, Telefilm Canada, the Canadian Wheat Board, the International Development Research Centre and the National Arts Centre.

Bill C-263 would move these crown corporations under the supervision of the auditor general. This is an absolute necessity considering the amount of dollars consumed by these five agencies.

The CBC is not included in Bill C-263. The reason for this is that Canadian Broadcasting Corporation provisions for the Financial Administration Act were incorporated into the Broadcasting Act in 1991. In short, the CBC is already subject to the accountability requirements of Bill C-263 and the Financial Administration Act.

This latter point is important for members of the House to note. The CBC is the recipient of about 70 per cent of all government funding provided to crown corporations that are exempt. This means Bill C-263 is finishing a job already accomplished by Parliament. Since 1991 the CBC has adjusted to the accountability requirements of part X of the Financial Administration Act.

Hon. members may agree with my observation that the CBC, more than any other exempt crown corporation in Bill C-263, was most insistent about the idea of critical importance of an arm's length relationship to the government. The CBC has not had the difficulties it anticipated in adapting to these accountability requirements. The CBC has been operating within this framework for the last four years without too much difficulty.

I remind colleagues that the auditor general already performs financial audits on the five corporations in Bill C-263. However, these audits do not permit the auditor general to comment on the appropriateness of the activities of the five, nor is the auditor able to comment on the extent to which each fulfils its mandate.

As it stands now these are not value for money audits. This must be a necessity for these five corporations. Value for money audits are done every five years. They are different from annual audits in that they comment on corporate management, goals and objectives.

It is fair to say the boards of the exempt corporations should welcome the value for money audits in much the same way private sector enterprises welcome their annual audits in which their forecasting and business plans come under the scrutiny of their shareholders and an auditor.

It is not unthinkable that the board members would look on the audits as helpful to their own work as well as a positive accountability measure, something that has been missing in many of these crown corporations within the framework of government operations.

It has been 10 years since this accountability framework for crown corporations was established. Exempt corporations have now had a decade to review and analyse effects of the Financial Administration Act on the independence of non-exempt crown corporations. By now it is highly likely the crown corporations exempted from the act would conclude that the Financial Administration Act poses no real threat to them. The CBC is an illustration of this. Provisions of the Financial Administration Act were incorporated into the amended Broadcasting Act in 1991.

It is reasonable to require the five crown corporations to prepare a business plan so that annual reports can allow the Canadian people, the taxpayers, the funders of these programs, to monitor and gauge the performance of these five.

There have been some cases in which crown corporations' annual reports differ from the business plan objectives, even though there are no provisions for exempted crown corporations to invite the auditor general to conduct special examinations. The audit is released only to the board of directors, not to Parliament. It must be released to Parliament. It must come under the scrutiny of all members of Parliament so we can ensure taxpayers' money is being accounted for.

Providing the corporations with the option of inviting the auditor general to do an audit is not good enough. If the auditor general's office were involved in the corporation on a regular basis, business plan objectives would not deviate from objectives stated in the annual report.

We all agree that in times of restraint such as we have now those who spend taxpayers' dollars must be more aware than ever that they are answerable as to how the dollars are spent. Part X of the Financial Administration Act has been so effective for other crown corporations, it seems reasonable, logical and simply common sense to bring the five crown corporations outlined in Bill C-263 into line as well. I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-263.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on Bill C-263, an act to amend the Financial Administra-

tion Act, sponsored by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.

I as well endorse the objectives of the bill to increase the accountability of exempt crown corporations to the taxpayers of Canada. At the same time I have reservations that this proposal is the best approach to the question.

Let me deal with the proposal to make the officers and employees of the Canada Council, the National Arts Centre and the International Development Research Council part of the public service of Canada.

On February 27, 1995 the Minister of Finance introduced a historic budget to the House. Part of the announcement was the need to reduce the size of the public service by some 45,000 positions over the course of the next three years. That is a major undertaking which will require a great deal of effort to manage with both wisdom and compassion.

These three corporations have approximately 850 employees combined; roughly 230 in the Canada Council and 280 in the National Arts Centre and 340 in IDRC.

Adding 850 positions to the size of the public service at this time is swimming against the current. For this reason, if for no other, I cannot support the bill as presented to the House.

I share the point of view expressed early in the debate by the hon. member for La Prairie that broad brush legislation of the sort reflected in Bill C-263 is not the only approach that can be taken to this issue. There are other approaches that can and have been taken recently to strengthen the accountability of our crown corporations.

One such approach is improving the quality of corporate governance. I am referring to the role of the board of directors whose responsibility it is, to put it simply, to manage the mangers. In this respect I invite the attention of the House to the final report of the Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal and agency review released on February 16, 1995, the same day as the budget.

The purpose of the review announced in the February 1994 budget was to review the continuing usefulness and the currency of the mandate of the federal government, several hundred agencies, boards and commissions.

Among the measures adopted by the government in the final report to streamline the appointment process were decisions to reduce the size of the governing bodies of a number of agencies including crown corporations.

Accountability for taxpayers' dollars is a key consideration for these exempt corporations. In this regard it is worth noting the review concluded reductions in governor in council appointments will take place in three exempt corporations, two of which are identified in this bill.

The board of governors of the CBC will be reduced from 15 to 12 members. The board of trustees of the National Arts Centre would be downsized to eight members from the current eleven. The governor in council position of secretary will be eliminated in Telefilm Canada. The agency review taken as a whole will result in the elimination of some 589 governor in council appointments.

As well, the final report and agency review revamped the tenure provisions of the appointment process which would make it easier for the government to remove under performing individuals holding full time appointments, including officers of crown corporations appointed by the governor in council. Incumbents of these positions will now serve at pleasure. The government is committed to improving the appointment process, including appointments to the board of directors of crown corporations.

That is a commitment of the red book. Those were the recommendations in the report commissioned by the Prime Minister and submitted by Mr. Gérard Veilleux. "Unfinished Business, a Report on the Appointment Process to Boards of Directors of Crown Corporations", was released by the Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal last July. That was the focus of a conference held in October by the President of the Treasury Board for the chairpersons and chief executive officers of crown corporations.

The subject matter of that conference will perhaps reinforce the message to the sponsor of this bill that there are other avenues to improving the accountability regime for all crowns, including the exempts beyond the legislative approach.

The October conference, "Corporate Governance: Improving the Effectiveness of Crown Corporation Board of Directors", sponsored four workshops for participants. The first of these was on the development and approval of strategy.

This group explored the importance of the development and approval of specific strategies, the challenge of linking the development of strategy to the corporation's mandate, the relationship of the board to management and the factors which contribute to a board's success.

The second workshop was on the subject of board composition and evaluation. Discussion in these groups centred on the roles of the chairperson and the CEO, the selection and evaluation of board members, the functioning of the appointment process, board self-evaluation, the orientation and education of directors and all related communications issues.

The third workshop dealt with balancing the corporate agenda and the public good. Groups discussed the trade-offs between meeting the commercial financial objectives and achieving the

mandated public policy objectives, all within the constraints imposed by the accountabilities of a public enterprise.

The final workshop addressed meeting the information needs of the board. Participants examined the information needs of the board from a variety of perspectives, including the often unique perspectives of the exempt crown corporations referred to in Bill C-263.

Work is continuing in these areas. Options for an education program for newly appointed directors of crown corporations are under review, which will strike the balance needed between the fiduciary responsibility of directors and the public policy role of the crown corporation.

The auditor general maintains an ongoing brief in this area as well. All of these measures are designed to increase the accountability of crown corporations, including the exempt crowns.

I invite the attention of members to the program review decisions announced in the February budget.

The budget states that the government will undertake a fundamental review of its support and mandates of the CBC, NFB and Telefilm Canada. Strategies and mandates that were developed under radically different circumstances must be re-examined in light of today's technological possibilities and the evolution of both the audio-visual industry and the domestic market.

That and similar opportunities may be the more appropriate avenues for the hon. member to pursue his very worthwhile interest in improving the accountability of the exempt crown corporation. Such an approach will preserve the flexibility and the accountability regime for those crown corporations which require a degree of independence from the direct ability of the government of the day to intervene in their policy and administrative decisions.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-263 has as its goal the bringing of five crown corporations under the accountability provisions of the Financial Administration Act which now applies to all other crown corporations. The corporations this act seeks to include are the Canada Council, the National Arts Centre Corporation, the Canadian Wheat Board, Telefilm Canada and the International Development Research Centre.

Hon. members have listened to earlier discussions on the merits of having all crown corporations operating under a sound system of control and accountability. I can only add my support to those expressions of interest that crown corporations should be appropriately managed, but I cannot support Bill C-263.

The objective of good government management of crown investments is neither a mountain of bureaucratic rules and regulations nor a flawed system that fails to provide the adequate tools to evaluate corporate performance. Appropriate accountability must balance control against an adequate degree of empowerment for corporate managers to do their jobs effectively and efficiently. After all, crown corporations have a real and valuable public policy purpose.

I am sure all hon. members would wish to ensure that important publicly owned institutions such as the Canada Council, the Canadian Film Development Corporation and others are held accountable for the results they achieve and the money they spend. I am equally certain hon. members would not wish to see the mandates of these corporations compromised, mandates that Parliament carefully protected in corporate enabling legislation. Or is that the case with this particular bill?

Perhaps the real agenda here is to remove from these particular crown corporations their arm's length quality, their ability to act at arm's length from the government. Perhaps the real agenda is to stifle the creativity which is part of the Canada Council, part of Telefilm Canada and part of the National Arts Centre. Perhaps the real agenda is to suppress the work of the International Development Research Centre or to prevent the wheat board from performing its mandate which has been so valuable particularly to the western provinces.

What is appropriate accountability for these corporations? That is the real question. Clearly, the present system of laws, regulations and government policies affecting crown corporations has evolved considerably. It can provide both Parliament and the government with much useful information and the assurance that crown corporations are being well managed.

The Auditor General reports to this House on a regular basis on crown corporation matters. Indeed, the Auditor General is the auditor or the joint auditor for 35 out of 48 of these corporations, including four that are part of this bill: the National Arts Centre, the Canada Council, the International Development Research Centre and Telefilm Canada.

Moreover, Treasury Board reviews the operations of crown corporations. It deals with resourcing issues for those corporations that are exempt from part X of the Financial Administration Act but nevertheless require government appropriation.

Of prime importance also is the fact that each crown corporation by law has an appropriate minister. The corporations are accountable through their ministers to Parliament. These ministers must table a number of important accountability documents relating to their crown corporation, such as annual reports, summaries of corporate plans, operating and capital budgets.

Stepping back for a moment and looking at appropriate accountability in a broader context, I believe the fiscal challenges which the government is currently facing necessarily will affect the way it manages crown corporations. There will be an even greater need to find ways of delivering public policy in an efficient businesslike manner than there is at present.

Reducing or at least more carefully controlling the size of the public service would appear to be part of the solution toward meeting this need. Interestingly, I note that Bill C-263 would actually add to the size of the public service by adding those employees of the Canada Council, the International Development Research Centre and the National Arts Centre to the public service of Canada. This appears to be going in the opposite direction from that which the proponents of smaller government usually follow.

I might add that it also runs counter to the general philosophy of empowering crown corporations to be separate employers and to take direct responsibility for their personnel matters. This responsibility must be carried out fairly and efficiently in the best interests of the corporation.

It is one important example of how the use of crown corporations with their corporate structure based on the private sector model can remove layers of red tape in decision making. Less red tape in personnel administration and human resource management is one advantage of the crown corporation forum which may prove to be an increasingly attractive way of improving the efficiency with which certain government programs could be delivered. The focus will increasingly be on the expertise brought to bear on those directly responsible for the day to day running of those corporations, the expertise of the board of directors.

The public has demanded transparency and accountability from all government institutions. Foremost, the public expects integrity from those officers charged with the responsibility of running these institutions. In the early months of this government the Prime Minister made this value central to both the letter and the spirit of our actions. The quest must be for financial responsibility and common sense in the way all government institutions are run and held accountable.

We have seen a number of studies in the area of corporate governance in the past few years, including work done by Peter Dey for the Toronto Stock Exchange. What we know is that the public has effectively been expressing its frustration at being left out or ignored in both the process and structures of corporate governance in the private sector. Boards of directors and corporate managers are experiencing an upsurge in public sentiment for democratization that has affected many other aspects of the daily lives of Canadians everywhere: our families, our communities, our courts and our schools, in addition to private corporations.

The modern business corporation is now seen by many as both an economic institution and a social institution. This is closer to how our crown corporations have always been viewed in their quest to balance efficient and businesslike operations with the public policy agenda.

The growing public expectation creates pressure for more formal rules and regulations, values and ethics for both the process and the people who influence corporate decision making. The government is acutely aware of the changing scene in corporate governance. It has undertaken a number of important initiatives in this area as they relate to crown corporations, including those named in Bill C-263.

The Treasury Board Secretariat jointly with the Conference Board of Canada and the Canadian Centre for Management Development developed and published an introductory document on the roles and responsibilities of directors of crown corporations to provide important guidance on appropriate accountability for directors. It has been well received since its publication in July 1993.

In an effort to focus more attention on the goal of improving sensitivities in the area of corporate governance, a training conference was held this past fall for CEOs and chairs of crown corporations to improve the performance of crown corporate boards. One of the four major themes discussed was the challenge of balancing the corporate agenda and the public good.

These initiatives demonstrate that careful attention is being paid to the evolution of accountability issues surrounding crown corporations using an open process of consultation. Developing a new statutory accountability framework for the five crown corporations named in Bill C-263 should follow the same sort of consultative process. It should not be insensitive to the particular needs of those crown corporations affected or their many significant stakeholders among the Canadian population.

I can only suggest that the bill presented by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt while demonstrating concern for the interests of Canadian taxpayers does not equally meet the test of public consultation to which this government is much committed. I urge hon. members to vote against it.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow the member for Windsor-St. Clair. She has already indicated to the House that we on this side applaud the intent of Bill C-263 but continue to regard the proposal from the member for Okanagan-Simikameen-Merritt as fatally flawed.

The bill's central proposal, and I am sure we have all reviewed this carefully, is to remove the exemption for five crown

corporations from part X of the Financial Administration Act which sets out a generic accountability regime for crown corporations. These five agencies are the Canada Council, the National Arts Centre Corporation, the International Development Research Centre, Telefilm Canada, and the Canadian Wheat Board.

There are a number of problems with this bill. In attempting to convert the employees of the three exempt crown corporations to public servants, there is the possibility that these employees would come under the workforce adjustment policy. When we consider the overall efforts of this government to downsize, this seems to be an unnecessary complication. It would add approximately 800 more civil servants if this bill were to pass.

I will pick specifically the International Development Research Centre. At the time Bill C-24 was proposed back in March 1984 this matter was raised as a question in the House by the then member for Capilano. A response was given by the then Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

The enabling legislation passed in the early 1960s allows up to 21 governors of the IDRC, which include the chairman and the vice-president, to be non-Canadian citizens and nationals of other countries. The purpose was to promote a research centre on north-south issues by way of example which would follow Canada's lead in the area of international development.

At the time Bill C-24 was before the House it was intended that the IDRC remain independent of the policy direction of the Government of Canada. For this reason it was named in clause 85(1) of the bill as an exempt crown corporation.

This effort by the hon. member from the Reform Party would attempt to turn the clock back. While we can applaud some of the positive features of the member's proposed bill, the overall effect would be negative.

There are other elements of Bill C-263 which trouble me. These are the consequential amendments to other legislation in the bill to make the officers and employees of the Canada Council, the Canadian Film Development Corporation, or Telefilm Canada as it has come to be known, and the National Arts Centre Corporation to be part of the Public Service of Canada. Frankly, recent experience suggests that this is taking measures in the wrong direction.

I am reminded of the trials and tribulations of the Government of New Zealand in the early 1980s with its massive debt and deficit situation. Drastic measures were proposed in a number of areas to deal with that awesome challenge.

One initiative was a complete restructuring of the New Zealand public service from the way deputy ministers are appointed and held accountable to the decentralization of departments. Sufficient time has now elapsed from the initial turnaround efforts to allow a dispassionate assessment of the measures put in place. There is a wide consensus now in New Zealand and among knowledgeable observers of public administration in many western countries respecting one very beneficial element of that initiative by the New Zealand government.

I refer to the introduction of legislation to make each department of government a separate employer under the collective bargaining regime established for the public service. This single measure is given credit for a major element of the success of the reform package. It has allowed individual managers to tailor the workforce to the specific mandate of each revamped agency and significantly reduced the inertia and rigidity in the service. If anything we ought perhaps to be exploring the merits of establishing more separate employers, not fewer.

While New Zealand no doubt had very difficult choices to deal with, I think most members would agree that Canada as well has significant debt and deficit challenges on its agenda. The effort by New Zealand to deal with the matter is a clear demonstration that the government's intention to achieve more flexibility in the management of its affairs is the way to go. Attempting to bring these agencies and their workers within the general purview of the government flies in the face of our attempts to downsize, to improve efficiencies and to do a better job with the resources Canadians give us through taxes on their hard won labours. It requires that we be responsible with those resources.

Introducing greater rigidity into the system as the bill is proposing would seem to be the wrong policy instrument for our present ills. No doubt the intention of the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt is to enhance the efficiency of these crown corporations. In this respect I suspect the opposite effect will be achieved.

The hon. member's proposals to integrate the employees of these agencies into the monolithic structure of the federal public service would unravel a very delicate compromise achieved between the government and the cultural communities over 10 years ago with the passage of Bill C-24.

These organizations have developed their strengths by cultivating their distinct corporate cultures over the last few decades. The erosion of those identities by declaring the officers and employees part of the public service would at best be unfortunate. I suggest it would be a backward step.

It risks undermining the longstanding confidence they enjoy from their partners and clients in such practices as peer evalua-

tions and the reputations individuals have achieved resulting from their mobility within cultural industries.

For these reasons I respectfully recommend to all members that Bill C-263 be defeated.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Resuming debate. Seeing no member rise, the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, has given notice to the Chair seeking the floor under right of reply.

Again I must advise the House that if the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt speaks it will close debate. In fact no one else will be able to speak afterward and I will put the question immediately following his last intervention, which will be no longer than two minutes.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Christopher Columbus was a man of vision. He did not accept the status quo. Many times people told Christopher Columbus that he was wrong in what he was doing, that he should not even attempt to look beyond or explore past the horizon, and that if he dared to do so he would surely fall off a flat earth.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Do you mean there were Reformers back then too?

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

The naysayers with whom Christopher Columbus dealt obviously were Liberals. Christopher Columbus was probably the first Reformer.

Bill C-263 challenges the status quo as did Christopher Columbus. However, unlike Christopher Columbus the ideas in Bill C-263 are not as radical. They are not a form of radical change but rather are a form of necessary change to Parliament and to the operations of government and of all crown corporations.

The accountability framework we are asking the five exempted crown corporations to be moved into is the framework all other crown corporations come under. There is no reason why they should be exempted.

It is a real shame hon. members of the House did not bother reading the reports of the auditor general from 1989 to 1991 wherein he expressed concern about the subject. I refer to section 4.100 of the 1991 auditor general's report which states:

The Office strongly supported the strengthened legislative framework for Crown corporations, and has continually urged that those Crown corporations that were exempted from Part X of the FAA be brought into line with its accountability provisions. It is important that Parliament have assurance that appropriate accountability provisions apply to all parent Crown corporations. When exemptions are granted, means should be found to ensure adequate control and accountability.

I urge all members to support Bill C-263.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to an order made earlier this day the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, April 25, 1995, at 5.30 p.m.

I seek the guidance of the House. Originally the debate was to end at approximately this time followed by a 15-minute bell for the vote. By virtue of the arrangement made earlier for the vote to be deferred, I could either suspend to the call of the Chair or commence another item of business.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest we suspend for 10 minutes and resume with Government Orders at twelve o'clock.