House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was particular.

Last in Parliament November 2005, as Conservative MP for Kelowna (B.C.)

Won his last election, in 2004, with 48% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Occupational Health And Safety June 3rd, 1996

Mr. Speaker, of all the weeks recognized for specific causes and issues, this is one of the more important ones. It is a privilege to respond to the minister's statement.

Occupational health and safety is an issue in which we are all involved. Every year, as the minister has clearly identified, about 800,000 Canadians are involved in job related accidents which result in many work days lost, money not earned, families in trouble and personal trauma experienced by the individual.

The Minister of Labour asks is it reasonable the Canadian economy support as much as $10 billion in compensation for these accidents. The simple answer is it is not reasonable.

In these post-recession days business cannot afford to replace or do without experienced employees who are sidelined because of accidents. The effect on families, the effect on friends and the effect on relationships has already been indicated. It is very significant.

Parliament and provincial legislatures can pass all the laws they want on occupational health and safety, but employers and employees must ensure they are followed, like every other law. With increasing competitiveness and technological advances in the knowledge based society we are faced with new and ever changing conditions and previously unheard of hazards. Every industry and every workplace has its own seen and unseen obstacles as a consequences. The onus has to be on each one of us, owners, managers, supervisors and workers, to look out for ourselves and also for our colleagues.

The theme of the 1996 Occupational Health and Safety Week is "Training-Target Zero Accidents". That is a great target and it is one we should strive for. To achieve this, labour and management have to work together to educate employees on the safe use of equipment and the potential risks and dangers of misuse or neglect of safety precautions.

I must draw to the attention of the House that it is not simply a matter of training, it is not simply a matter of education, it is not simply a matter of information. Three things need to happen to help change people's behaviour. First, they need to know what the issue is. Second, they need to understand the issue. And third, they must accept it. That acceptance often requires a change in attitude.

When the attitude is "I am responsible for my own safety", and the manager takes the responsibility for his or her safety and that of fellow workers, only then will behaviour actually change.

I would like to put this adage to the House: Let us have the attitude of "I am responsible" and recognize that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Supply May 30th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his endorsement on changing the democratic process and the system in the House. I would like to expand on it one step further because it allows me to make some very specific suggestions. One has to do with a vote of confidence.

Not long ago in the House a government member voted against the budget. The Prime Minister interpreted it to be a vote of non-confidence.

I think that is false. I recommend the parliamentary system be changed. The Reform Party recommends that with regard to any government bill, including a financial bill, it should be possible for members, including members of the ruling party, to vote against a bill. Then following that if they really have no confidence in the government it should be a separate motion which could be voted on separately. Much better decisions would be made, better legislation would be passed and the wishes of constituents could be expressed more clearly.

Another area concerns the other place which is populated only by individuals selected and appointed by the Prime Minister without consultation with his caucus, constituents or the House. We suggest those people be elected in their respective provinces and that each province should have the same number of senators so there could be a balance of representation across Canada and there would be an appropriate balance of regions and effective powers.

There needs to be a checks and balances in the way decisions are made in Parliament. If members of the other place were elected they could carry out the responsibilities of that place the way they should be done.

Supply May 30th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, may I welcome you back after your reception with the 21 scholarship winners of the Canada Trust scholarship for special community service. I met them this morning at the Governor General's residence where the Canada Trust official presented the scholarships. It was a wonderful experience to meet with these beautiful young people.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon you would have been treated to probably one of the most theatrical performances of the Minister of Health, the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. I have never seen anybody come forward with such rhetoric and such oratory and with such theatrical excitement as we heard here. In fact there was one point at which I thought he should be joining some kind of a ministerial association because he was really bringing about fire, brimstone and everything else that could possibly be perpetrated on the people of Canada.

He also demonstrated extreme skill as a debater. The people of Canada will be the judge of whether or not he spoke the truth.

Similarly, we just heard a performance by the hon. whip of the government. He took certain quotations very selectively from certain documents and made it abundantly apparent to everybody concerned that if one wants to prove a particular point and take words out of context one can prove virtually anything.

The point that needs to be recognized is that in the House, members first responsibility is not necessarily to debate for the sake of debating, but to debate to get the best possible decision, the best possible policies, the best possible laws for the benefit of all Canadians. They are not here to prove each other stupid or make each other look like they do not know what they are talking about or that they are not consistent in the things they say. That is the issue.

Sometimes things happen in this place which should not happen. Members fail to recognize that while they debate and are concerned about the big and lofty issues in the House, the people in the constituencies are concerned about the safety of their streets and whether their concerns are being dealt with. They are concerned about their pensions, their health care. There is uncertainty developing in Canada today.

I cannot help but refer to the hon. whip who just a moment ago seemed to be so proud of the fact that Canada ranks eighth or fifteenth in the world in the productivity of the people. Why cannot we be first? The United Nations has declared Canada to be the most desirable country in the world in which to live. I think that is wonderful and I am proud of it. However, Canada should also be number one in productivity. But it is not. Some people are satisfied to rank eighth or fifteenth in the nations of the world. We can become first, but we need to make some changes.

I want to refer to a letter I received a year ago from 12-year old Joshua Goode of Winfield. "My dad says that Canada is more than $500 billion in debt. Is that true? It worries me because that means one day I will have to pay for it and I did not have a choice in the matter of spending it".

What can I tell him? I have to tell him that not only is it $500 billion but as of this morning it is $582 billion and rising. For Josh and the rest of the constituents of Okanagan Centre, I want an end to unnecessary government spending and I want a balanced budget.

The constituents of Okanagan Centre are debt weary. They are tired of talking about the debt. They want to see results. They want light at the end of the tunnel. Empty words that sound nice do not do any good when it is discovered the truth lies somewhere else.

I was in a grade 12 class not too long ago and we went through what the Minister of Finance indicated so clearly. He said: "Look, our deficit is going down". The students looked at it and said: "That is wonderful. The deficit is going down each year". Then we looked at the fact that each year's deficit is added to the previous year's debt. As the deficit is going down the debt is rising. As the debt rises the interest charges against the debt also rise. That is the natural predator of our social and other programs that people want assurances will continue.

Members need to recognize that things have to change in order for us to give Canadians the assurances they need. The people of Canada know only too well that governments cannot keep spending more than they take in without some day finding that the freedom which is enjoyed today will be placed in jeopardy because of previous commitments and there is no longer the financial freedom to do the things they want to do. People are being asked through a decision by this government to surrender their personal freedom in the future in order to pay the debt which is growing on a daily basis.

They do not want to face the prospect that this 12-year old Josh Goode should have to worry about the debt. My constituents want no more deficits. They want to see tax and debt relief so that their household incomes will stop being eaten away. They want a reformed tax system which is fair and rewards success, innovation and productivity.

What about social well-being in the future? Here I refer to Mrs. Laursen of Kelowna who writes: "I am so very angry hearing about the waste of government spending, when my husband, a senior, and myself have to live on a small amount of income, to make repairs, pay rent, pay gas, hydro, medical bills. My advice to the government is, you had better learn to adjust. We have. You do too".

If the seniors in my riding can adjust, why cannot the government? I submit that it can. Why should Mr. and Mrs. Laursen and people like them have to carry the debt? They do not have to. Something can be done. Something should be done. Something must be done.

My constituents want greater personal security. They want to be assured that the level of support they have for social programs will continue to exist. They want their pensions to remain at the level where they are today and not threatened to be reduced in the future.

They want the quality of their health care to be maintained. They want access to income support programs in periods of unemployment. They want them to be there in sickness and in other personal hardship. They do not want them reduced. They want them to be maintained.

Unless some changes are made in the current fiscal situation, not only will these programs not be maintained where they are but they will be cut back. We will not be able to afford them.

Our young people should have no fear about growing old, to feel that they will not have the security that they need. It is terribly unfair for the government to leave them hanging, wondering what they can look forward to.

I want to suggest to members opposite that we must stop. We can no longer justify unnecessary spending like the most recent invitation to Magna International, a highly profitable company, to be offered $2.4 million for a training program. Who is paying for that training program? It is the taxpayers in Kelowna. It is the taxpayers in Okanagan Centre, the businesses with whom Magna International is sometimes competition. Their tax dollars are going to pay for a training program that Magna International can well afford to do on its own.

What I want for my constituents is courageous leadership that is not afraid to say what needs to be done and then acts quickly to avoid further erosion of our social net in Canada.

Elimination of the deficit is the absolute number one requirement and then retirement of the debt through expenditure reduction, not increased taxation, will give assurance to retirees.

What about justice? I refer to Mr. Oliver who is a resident of Okanagan Centre and lives in Kelowna. He is an ex-officer of a police force. He says: "The death of Margaret Shoup of this city formed part of a series of crimes committed by a 17-year-old youth who blatantly ignored the fact that he had earlier been found guilty of serious crimes and who continued his recklessness and threatening escapades, thumbing his nose at the law at every turn.

"Were the justice minister to tackle the problems of crime, especially juvenile crime, with half as much vigour as has been directed toward gun control, citizens might be inclined to show respect.

"As a former police officer, I hold every sympathy for citizens, especially the elderly, who see the continual erosion of the justice system in our country and who, in many instances, are terrified of continuing violence and the puny measures that our government insists on levelling to combat the same". The justice system is a disgrace according to this ex-police officer.

May I refer to an article that appeared in the Globe this morning. It is a front page news story. I do not have time to read the whole thing. It concerns one of the boys who murdered some of these other young people. The article states that the boy who is well known to police said to the arresting officers that they cannot do anything to him because, under the Young Offenders Act, he is not old enough to be charged with a crime. Why is this so? This is probably one of the most serious statements I have read in a long time, on May 29, 1996.

Dr. Louis Morissette, age 41, who is working with some very seriously disturbed people says this. "Youth today have less hope for the future than we did. When I was growing up, I never thought about the future. The future was there for me to take. It is not true today. It is not true for the jobs. It is not true for the family. It is not true for security in a general sense. It is not true for sexuality, because you can get AIDS and things like that.

"Young people are growing up too soon, too fast and with too little love and encouragement. They do not feel for other people because they have the impression that other people do not feel for them. I do not excuse them. As a society, we have to look at how we take care of our children". That should be our concern. We need to love our children. We need to encourage them, we need to give them role models. By having legislation that deals with young offenders in such a way that they have no respect either for the arresting officer or for the punishment levied will not give the kind of support and direction our young people need.

My constituents want to feel safe on their streets. They want to know that appropriate punishment will exist and will fit the crime and that communities are all taking responsibility for our young people to prevent crime. That is not just a matter for the government, it is not just a matter for the social agencies, it is a matter for everyone of us.

We must place the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals, eliminating statutory release provisions for high risk offenders and changes to the parole board so that qualified correctional officers and not political appointees make the decisions.

I refer to unity. I read extensively from a letter I received from two of my constituents. Mr. and Mrs. Sprecher wrote the following on December 8, 1995, addressed to the Prime Minister:

You are making a big mistake. Your proposals for distinct society for Quebec and constitutional vetoes are not sources for unity of Canada. They will divide Canada. Meech Lake and the Charlottetown accord were both soundly defeated by the people. You have no mandate to offer them to Quebec again. You obviously want to sacrifice western Canada to appease Quebec. Are you prepared to alienate B.C., Alberta and Ontario? These are the three provinces that supply the money for the transfer payments so you can buy your votes in Quebec. Canadians do not want a distinct society. We want our country united. You might gain Quebec for a short time, then lose the rest of Canada because of it.

You have not been listening to Canadians. There is no need for special status or veto powers to be granted to any province. Canadians are giving you a strong message that they want fair laws applicable to all equally. You are being grossly misinformed if you believe that an overwhelming majority of Canadians are ready to make concessions to appease separatists and to reward Quebecers for their no votes during the referendum. Canadians are fed up with the eternal costly ranting, whining and threats from Quebec. We are fed up with the huge amount of money spent on bilingualism and repeated concessions made to pacify Quebec. It is time for Quebecers to learn the truth about our country. They should be told they will not be allowed to break up Canada. They should be told that they are not distinct, not part of France, and told once and for all that they are Canadians. There is one terminology, we are all Canadians.

If Quebec wants change the rest of the country must also benefit from change. Any change that gives Quebec an advantage over the rest of Canada is not acceptable. The federal government must know that we will not stand for any additional Quebec handouts, no rewards for staying in Canada with the constant threat of yet another round of separation talks in the future. We do not want another Quebec referendum, ever. No one ethnic group should be treated any better than others. This includes Quebec, native Indians or any other group that think they should receive special status and their own government.

It is high time we recognize we are together in this nation. I was so proud of my colleague from Scarborough who said so clearly what Canada meant to him as an immigrant to this country. That was a wonderful message coming from the heart of that individual. I identified completely with the message he was giving to Canadians and to me as another member of Parliament.

I am proud to be a parliamentarian. I am happy we can have altercations back and forth across the House. What makes me sad is when people take things out of context deliberately to prove a point which was never the point what was intended to be made. The truth ought to stand, and that is integrity. It is not a mark of integrity to take things out of context to prove a point which was never the message in the first place.

Many constituents of Okanagan Centre condemn the government for betraying their trust. Because of the lack of promises being filled there is now developing a cynicism about public institutions, about government, politicians and the political process.

There are two encouraging points. They are willing to help. I quote a letter from Bruce Eckhoff to the Minister of Finance:

I am willing at any time to assist you in determining a constructive means of performing this task.

I wish to advise you that I can no longer tolerate any increases in taxation. In addition, I will not tolerate anything less than meaningful reductions in government spending.

By increasing taxes you are forcing more Canadians to the underground economy. You are taxing the incentives to work out of this country. Many of my co-workers no longer believe it is possible to get ahead, as the government will tax any additional effort away.

It is time to wean the corporations and special interest groups off the government payroll. I am fed up with out of control spending by government. It is time for you to leave the money in the hands of the individual taxpayer and let them make choices on how to spend it. Government has gone too far.

Please do not place any additional burden on the future generations of this fine country. It is time to get the house in order. I am willing at any time to assist you in determining a constructive means of performing this task.

No more taxes. Enough is enough.

There is willingness to co-operate and willingness to help. There is more.

Peter Greer, a columnist with the Winfield Calendar writes: "I am going to vote. I want to vote for a politician who shows true leadership; one who leads, not one who merely wants to manage. I want to vote for someone who truly cares for his fellow man".

There have been special little demonstration of that caring in the House in the legislation presented in the last two years. Not enough caring has gone on. Not enough caring has been demonstrated by the speeches made here today.

We have seen feeble legislation dealing with justice. We have had legislation of a harmonization program of the GST, which really is not an elimination of the GST, which has been so aptly illustrated by a number of my colleagues. The results of that harmonization will not help. It will add additional taxes and additional requirements. People will pay more as a result of this. Other provinces will have to add more to the transfer to those provinces which are being bribed into harmonization.

Canadians do want to help and that is why the Reform Party came into being. However, there can be no help if government is not prepared to listen. None are so blind as those who will not see. None are so deaf as those who will not hear.

May this resolution draw our attention and awaken all of us to a challenge that we as Reformers are prepared to endorse, that we will bring about a better society for Canada, that we can be the best country to live in, that we can be the most productive country in the world where we listen to the people and we will bring to the people of Canada that which they look for, and that is what we will give to the country when we form the next government.

Greyhound Air May 30th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, 24 jobs in Kelowna, 63 jobs in Vancouver, 145 jobs in Calgary, 43 jobs in Edmonton, 89 jobs in Winnipeg, 61 jobs in Ottawa, 64 jobs in Toronto, 109 jobs in Hamilton: 595 Canadian jobs provided by Greyhound Air. Will it fly? "Can't do it", says the NTA. "Regulatory restrictions", shrugs the Minister of Transport.

The Liberal government has had three years to make changes that would give Canadian business an advantage and ensure fair competition. Why has it not been done? Why must businesses like Kelowna Flightcraft go to court to prove it has the right to do business in its own country?

Clearly too many lawyers and not enough business people are running this country. That would change under a Reform government.

Economic recovery, opportunity and jobs. Those were the promises. By hijacking Canadian business with regulatory restrictions? By forcing Canadian businesses to take a nosedive? That is not acceptable. We do not think so.

Bankruptcy And Insolvency Act May 27th, 1996

Madam Speaker, I have read with considerable interest the provisions of Bill C-5, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. While there are a number of elements in the bill we can support, there are a couple of things I want to address this afternoon which we cannot support.

To review briefly, the bill does provide some rather interesting remedies for some difficulties in the business of bankruptcy and insolvency. For example, it comes to grips with procedures in consumer bankruptcies and proposals. It deals with landlord compensation where leases are disclaimed in reorganizations. The liability of directors and stays of action against directors during reorganizations are dealt with. There is protection for trustees and receivers against personal liability for pre-appointment environmental damage and other claims. Worker's Compensation Board claims are dealt with, dischargeability of student loans and so on.

A number of these are rather significant. I will address a couple of these which are particularly worthwhile noting. First is the matter dealing with student loans. Students are responsible for their loans two years after they declare bankruptcy. That is significant because at the present time there is apparently an opportunity for students to escape paying their loan simply by declaring personal bankruptcy. This provision alone should save the federal government approximately $60 million.

Another has to do with divorced spouses. The provision in the original draft of this bill was not acceptable, but the minister has agreed to accept one of our amendments. Therefore this area will be covered very well. It deals with divorced and separate spouses who will receive priority ranking among creditors for settlement of claims. Spouses are not now considered creditors under the bankruptcy laws. I think that new provision is a particularly good one and ought to be endorsed.

The business of company director liability is also addressed and directors are permitted to defend themselves against negligence if they can prove they acted with due diligence. They would also get a stay of proceedings against them during reorganization proceedings. This provides a certain element of protection missing in the previous legislation.

In the matter of environmental clean-ups, the act becomes clear as well. It says environmental clean-ups will get top priority over the claims of creditors. Bankruptcy trustees and receivers will have to report environmental hazards they notice after a company becomes bankrupt.

Finally, in securities firms a process is laid out for bankrupt securities firms, particularly with regard to securities and debts held in the name of their clients. This is particularly significant because there have been clients who have been left high and dry by a security firm that went bankrupt and the money which was held by the company in trust was lost.

I would now like to look at another area which has to do with bankruptcies more generally. While this bill begins to come to grips with the ways in which bankruptcies are dealt with, it does not come to grips with the causes of bankruptcy. This gives me the opportunity this afternoon to suggest that there is a far too high an incidence of bankruptcies in Canada.

Consumer bankruptcies have soared in the last 10 years from approximately 20,000 in 1986 to over 60,000 in 1995. This is a threefold increase. Consumer bankruptcies are a sign of the lack of jobs that exist and the failure of the government to adequately address the problem. As a result, this bill cannot address the issue that is really at the heart of what is causing bankruptcies in Canada.

The federal debt now stands at between $580 billion and $585 billion. It is becoming very close to the $600 billion figure. It is all very nice for the Minister of Finance to talk about the wonderful way in which the deficit is being reduced each year, that the deficit this year will be a little less than last year and that it looks like eventually the government will get to the point where the deficit is reduced. However, he has not promised that he will eliminate the deficit.

Every Canadian knows that with each deficit the debt gets bigger. It does not help to say that the deficit is going down if the debt keeps on growing and the interest that has to be paid on the debt becomes greater. That is not the only one of the causes for bankruptcies. The taxes that are paid by taxpayers to pay the interest is constantly increasing and it is therefore more difficult for businesses to operate successfully.

When will the government recognize that as the debt increases, the predatory action of the interest on social programs and on businesses also increases. This bill, while it is a beautiful bill, does not go far enough. The reason we have the bill is because there are

too many bankruptcies. The time has come for us to realize that Canada must get its financial house in order so that it does not go bankrupt and become subject to something like the bankruptcy act in terms of the international monetary situation. I hope it never comes to that. Certainly it does not have to. I would encourage all of us to take the steps necessary to ensure that does not happen.

I draw the attention of the House to three areas where the bill is lacking. These are omissions. The first area deals with the lack of certain requirements of the Superintendent of Bankruptcies to report to the minister. The second area is the omission to provide for unpaid supplier accounts. The final area is the omission of payment of wages to workers whose employment is terminated because a firm went bankrupt.

I want to draw attention to the omission of certain requirements with regard to the superintendent to report to the minister. The role of the superintendent is described in section 5 of the act. It is very interesting what this bill does. I want to put this in the context of a certain management theory which is rather significant. I want to focus it from four perspectives: responsibility, accountability, delegation and power.

Responsibility is the clarity of tasks and lines of authority and communication so that everybody knows which responsibility and which outcome they are responsible for.

Accountability is who checks the work done, where does the final word come from and where does the buck stop. These areas have to be clearly identified.

Delegation is the assignment of tasks to others because no one person can do everything. We must ensure that the delegation is such that the whole operation works.

Finally, there is the matter of power; to effect the discipline necessary to enforce by placing sanctions or the issuance of a reward to those who should be rewarded for the work that they have done.

The principle that I wish to enunciate is that the elected persons are responsible to those who elected them. It is the absolute number one requirement. What has this got to do with the bill? I suggest that in order to accomplish the governing of a nation, a province, a municipality or the administration of a complex organization engaged in business or commercial activities, there are certain management principles which must be observed in order to assure that the goals, purposes and the mission of the organization can be accomplished.

The principles are the division of tasks to be formed into manageable components and to make sure that these tasks are carried out to the satisfaction of those in charge. How does this come into focus for Bill C-5?

Generally speaking, the bill does a reasonable job in meeting the requirements that would normally be associated with the implementation of these principles. However, it falls short in several areas. Two of them are accountability and responsibility.

As in several other pieces of legislation which have been presented to the 35th Parliament, this bill contains the provision of giving to the bureaucracy powers and the assignment of authority and responsibility without recognizing the role and the responsibility of Parliament and the elected representatives whose primary responsibility is to the people who have elected them to manage the affairs of this country in their best interest and to the advantage of all Canadians.

In Bill C-46, for example, which amended the Corporations Act, the minister was given in the initial presentation of the bill powers to determine the winners and losers by determining programs and special assistance in whatever industries, particular industries or commercial establishments, organizations or persons who are members of a particular category of persons defined by cabinet order. The minister changed that later and that is to his credit.

Bill C-99, which amended the Small Business Loans Act, contained provisions that the amount of liability of the government would be decided by cabinet, not Parliament. Again, it was an abrogation of the responsibility of Parliament and the members' responsibility to look after the best interests of the people who elected them.

Bill C-5 does not rectify that situation. Powers have been delegated to a bureaucrat, in this case the Superintendent of Bankruptcy. They should be in my opinion those of the minister.

What are some of these responsibilities? I will read from clause 5 of the bill we are considering:

5.(1) The Governor in Council shall appoint a Superintendent of Bankruptcy to hold office during pleasure who shall be paid such salary-

(2) The Superintendent shall supervise the administration of all the estates to which this Act applies

(3) The Superintendent shall, without limiting the authority conferred by subsection (2),

(a) receive applications for licences and renewals thereof to act as trustees under this Act, and, as authorized by the Minister, issue licences and renewals thereof to those persons whose applications have been approved;

(b) keep a record of all licences granted and of the renewals thereof as they are issued;

(c) where not otherwise provided for, require the deposit of one or more continuing guaranty bonds as security for the due accounting of all property

received by trustees and for the due and faithful performance by them of their duties in the administration of a estates to which they are appointed, in such amount as the Superintendent may determine, which amount may be increased or decreased as he may deem expedient, and the security shall be in a form satisfactory to the Superintendent and may be enforced by the Superintendent for the benefit of the creditors;

(d) keep such records as he may deem advisable of proceedings under this Act;

(e) from time to time make or cause to be made such inspection or investigation of estates as he may deem expedient and for the purpose of the inspection or investigation the Superintendent or any person appointed by him for the purpose shall have access to and the right to examine all books, records, documents and papers pertaining or relating to any estate;

(f) receive and keep a record of all complaints from any creditor or other person interested in any estate and make such specific investigations with regard to such complaints as the Superintendent may determine; and

(g) examine trustees' accounts of receipts and disbursements and final statements.

(4) The Superintendent may intervene in any matter or proceeding in court as he may deem expedient as though he were a party thereto.

It is a good set of duties but members will notice the number of times it says the superintendent "may". He may do this, he may do that and he may do something else.

Let me quote from another clause:

6.(1) The Superintendent may engage such accountants or other persons as he may deem advisable to conduct any inspection or investigation or to take any other necessary action outside the Office of the Superintendent, and the costs and expenses thereof shall, when certified by the Superintendent, be payable out of the appropriation for the Office of the Superintendent.

It continues down through the rest of that clause. Now comes the big, heavy duty clause, clause 7 of the bill which reads as follows:

  1. When any investigation has been made by the Superintendent or any one on his behalf; and it appears that a licensee-

That is a person or group of persons or a company that is authorized to manage an estate.

-under this act has not performed his duties properly or has been guilty of any improper conduct or has not fully complied with the law with regard to the proper administration of any estate, the Superintendent may make a report to the Minister together with such recommendations to the Minister as the Superintendent may deem advisable.

Notice that there could be an unlawful conduct, or an omission, or not having done something, an omission of some kind. The superintendent is not obligated to report. He may report to the minister. He may make a report to the minister together with such recommendations as the superintendent may deem advisable.

Huge estates could be at stake here. Big companies could be forced to reorganize their financial structures. Huge corporations could be forced to reorganize their international operations or indeed their national operations, affecting literally thousands of people's jobs. Perhaps the welfare of many other businesses depend on this larger organization to function.

If the trustee acts in a manner that is unlawful it is not a requirement of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy to cause that licensee to have his or her licence withdrawn or even a report to be made to the minister. Yet it is the minister who is responsible to look after the welfare of the people of Canada and was elected by those people to represent their interests.

The bill does not address this issue at all. It is silent on this matter. The difficulty is not in the range of responsibilities listed here, nor is it that the superintendent should not have substantial powers to enforce the fair and just administration of the estate of a person or corporation that is insolvent or bankrupt.

The difficulty is that the superintendent is not held to account to any elected official in the event of a licensee who "has not performed his duties properly or has been guilty of an improper conduct or has not fully complied with the law with regard to the proper administration of any estate". That is a serious and a very significant provision in current legislation and this bill does not address it at all.

The difficulty is that the application of the powers to assure fairness and veracity of trustee's reports is not subject to review by law. And it should be. Nor does it appear to be a requirement of the superintendent to make available trustee reports in the event that a civil litigation be launched and in that litigation perhaps charges of unfairness, perhaps bias or maybe even in some cases collusion by creditors against a particular bankruptcy. It is not a requirement of law that if such should be the case, the superintendent is required to present that kind of a report to the courts, and I think it ought to be.

The reason why this is so important is that information contained in bankruptcy reports can be crucial in the examination of the reasons for the bankruptcy or the reorganization requirement of a particular enterprise. Therefore it would appear imperative that amendments be introduced that would replace "may" with "shall". This would effect a shift in power from that of the superintendent to the minister.

The minister should have the final responsibility on matters such as the receiving of reports about the neglect of performance of

duties of licensees who are administering bankrupt estates instead of giving the superintendent absolute discretion in such matters.

The problem is exacerbated because it is the minister who issues and revokes licences. The minister does that but he does it on the advice of the superintendent. With those kinds of powers and with that kind of advice it is obvious what the minister will do. Such broad power is enough to determine the financial and economic success, or at least the viability, of a bankruptcy trustee.

In other words, a bankruptcy trustee may make a livelihood of administering bankrupt estates. If there are 60,000 of them in one year there is a lot of work to do. If the licence should be revoked the very welfare of that trustee could be at stake. If the superintendent of bankruptcies is the one who has that power, we can see how easy it would be for all kinds of things to go kind of funny in the background.

It also makes it possible for certain trustees to have a virtual monopoly on a set of estates or in doing work for a department. Determining the success or failure of a litigation, contesting the administration of the bankrupt estate, the causes which result in a bankruptcy, the fairness of assessing the claims properly and the priority of creditors are all related to the work of the trustee who is in charge of a particular bankruptcy.

Power to abuse is what we have here. There is power to abuse the system and that power needs to have checks and balances. I suggest those checks and balances rest with the minister and with cabinet, not with bureaucrats. Hence I suggest the minister consider the addition of the appropriate amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to remedy these shortcomings.

In matters of this kind there is always the possibility of being tempted to exercise power in a biased or discriminatory manner because of the money involved, thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in some cases.

While there are strong provisions in the bankruptcy act to discourage this biased practice, such provisions are difficult to enforce if other provisions of the act permit certain matters to go unreported to those in positions to do something about them.

There are two other areas of the bill which suffer from inadequacy or from omission. There is the matter of unpaid supplier provisions. Suppliers of goods are frequently in situations in which a debtor has ordered a considerable amount of inventory before being placed into bankruptcy or receivership. The supplier is then left with an unsecured claim for the price of goods while their value benefits the secured creditors who have charges on the business' inventory.

This practice of stacking up an inventory for the benefit of secured creditors is detrimental to the interests of the supplier. There are provisions under the current act to give suppliers the right to repossess merchandise delivered to a purchaser who becomes bankrupt or who goes into receivership.

Nevertheless, these provisions have received criticism from the financial community in which they say the availability of credit would be reduced because lenders would no longer be able to count on inventory as security for their loans. The matter is not dealt with here and probably at some future time it will be. It has been presented to the minister on more than one occasion. In each instance he has decided not to do anything about it.

The third omission is the bill does not provide for the payment of unpaid wages to workers whose employment was terminated as a result of a bankruptcy, receivership or liquidation of their employer. The matter was to have been the subject of a study by a special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. That committee was to report in June 1993. That committee was never established.

Instead, the wage claim payment program of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act maintained a preferred creditor status for unpaid wages, for unpaid wage claims, and increased the amounts that could be claimed.

In the interests of the employees who are terminated as a result of bankruptcy the matter should be revisited to determine whether a fairer and more equitable provision for the affected employees can be achieved.

There are a number of provisions in the bill which we can support and there are a number of shortcomings which have been addressed. While in general we will support the bill, I believe the minister would be well advised to recognize there is a lot of work left to be done to deal with those issues which must be addressed.

I underscore again that the real reason bankruptcy is so rampant in the country today has to do with the financial situation, in particular the fiscal situation, in which the country finds itself.

I encourage the Minister of Industry, who is leading this bill, and the Minister of Finance together with the Prime Minister to put all their efforts into one thrust to eliminate the deficit and begin to control the debt so that our interest payments do not continue to rise and we can once again have a fair and level playing field in which private industry, private enterprise, can build a country where all of us will have the economic freedom to spend our money the way we want to, with a minimum of government interference, and be successful in our endeavours so we will not have to deal with bankruptcy.

Québec-Téléphone April 22nd, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Quebec for Motion No. 102 which is currently before the House. It is an excellent motion and one which we could support 100 per cent if it were expanded to include B.C. Tel in every reference that was made to Quebec Tel. It seems to me that the problems with Quebec Tel with regard to the CRTC regulations and other legislation in Canada apply equally to the B.C. Tel organization.

I commend the concise way in which the arguments were presented. The examples given were excellent and they continue to also prevail in the province of British Columbia particularly with reference to B.C. Tel. The difference between B.C. Tel and Quebec Tel is that B.C. Tel is much more pervasive in that it covers the whole province. I commend my colleague for her willingness to bring forward this issue.

Rather than rehearse all of the good things that B.C. Tel has done and is doing and all the good things that Quebec Tel has done and is doing, I would like to draw brief attention to what brought about the need for a motion of this type to be introduced in the House. The primary reason this kind of motion must be presented to the House is that the legislation governing these foreign ownership of telephone companies and things of this sort is obsolete. Let me give a couple of examples of why I think this is the case.

A tiny little company is being developed in southern Ontario called The Linc which is going to try to combine the provisions of Internet with long distance telephones. We know that the communication signals are rapidly going into digital form and not too long in the future all of them will be digitized which creates some very interesting points. This makes it possible for signals to be compressed so that they take up very little space on the highway. They can then be decompressed at the receiving end to be interpreted as to what the message really was.

The minister's Information Highway Advisory Council was made up of all kinds of people. They were not political but were people who understood the business, particularly the technology pertaining to communications.

Members of the council said the following about foreign ownership limits: "As a means of reinforcing Canadian sovereignty, the Telecommunications Act, the Broadcasting Act and Teleglobe Act include provisions respecting Canadian ownership and control. In broadcasting and telecommunications, current regulations limit foreign ownership to 20 per cent". Apparently as of last week that was changed to 33-1/3 per cent. "As part of foreign ownership provisions and the Canadian ownership requirements in the Telecommunications Act 1993, Parliament introduced grandparenting provisions for two telephone companies: B.C. Tel and Quebec Tel. The council considered whether the grandparented status of these companies should be extended to cover licences to operate broadcasting undertakings. I submit they should.

Foreign ownership limits are meant to promote Canadian control. They may, however, deny Canada access to the investment necessary to develop the Canadian information highway. My hon. colleague across the way recognized how important the information highway is to Canada's economic, social and cultural development.

The very restriction being proposed, that is currently in vogue, and the one that is being proposed that it be lifted would encourage the development of the information highway, not discourage it. If we continue to insist on obsolete legislation, we will discourage the very thing the Minister of Industry is so strongly supporting and developing.

The council believes that with respect to investment the behaviour of capital is more critical as a policy issue than its source. It raises the very interesting question of how one determines the nationality of capital in the first place. It is important to recognize that capital in itself has no conscience. Capital does a variety of things. It seems the issue is not where that capital comes from but rather what that capital does.

We have Canadian capital engaged in all kinds of activities, some of which are smuggling and dealing in contraband activities. It is not that the capital did not originate in Canada; it is capital that is doing the wrong thing. If we really want to control capital we should be controlling what capital does so it can meet the objectives of our social, economic and cultural goals.

We need to have legislation that governs capital so it can operate in manner consistent with Canada's economic, social and cultural objectives. To that end, the advisory council went on to say that the liberalization of the telecommunications environment may be the most important step to realizing the economy-wide benefits of information highway use and development following a transitional period toward market based pricing, a framework of open and sustainable competition. That is at the heart of this issue.

It is all very well to speak about competition, and then have legislation which defies the implementation of that competition. It is important to recognize something which happened last week. The director of the CRTC, Keith Spicer, proposed that long distance charges be deregulated. In other words, the CRTC should not have regulatory power over the setting of those rates. That is

the first admission that it cannot control those rates. The competition is such that it is always behind the eight ball in those areas.

Last week the U.S. deregulated local telephone charges, which raises an interesting question for the ministers involved. What are the priorities? If Canadians were given a choice between giving the Canadian telecommunications industry the advantage it needs to be a strong contender and a leader in the global communications market, or preventing the Canadian industry from having a fair chance to compete by condemning our industries to third class, unable to compete, unable to produce jobs and growth, which do our ministers think Canadians would choose?

We want jobs. There is no doubt that if we are to have jobs we need to have competition especially in the electronics industry. If one talks to the people in the industry it becomes clear very quickly that if they were limited to competition in the Canadian environment only, they would not be able to generate the kinds of profits they would need to expand.

It is highly necessary for the government to realize within its own ranks, within its own cabinet there is a split over the issue of foreign ownership of phone and cable firms. There is a convergence developing in Canada today between telephone companies and cable companies. They can do exactly the same thing, provide telephone service and provide cable service.

I ask the government to examine the efficiency of the CRTC on the one hand dealing with telecommunications and broadcasting, and the Department of Industry dealing with spectrum management.

We have three different kinds of operations now. We have telecommunications and cable on this side. With industry, we have local multiple communications systems and the personal communication system.

The last two deal with licensing of certain spectra so that the industries or the companies involved will manage and communicate on those spectra. These licences have been granted by the minister of education to some companies. I have a lot of questions about exactly how the process was implemented to show fairness and equity for all those applying.

On the other hand, I want to compare what that process was with what the CRTC is doing. The CRTC is holding back technological development. It is making it very difficult for the companies to advance technologically.

On the other hand, the LMCSs and the PCSs and the way the licences were granted provided increased competition. While one of the processes is efficient, the other is not. Both have some problems with them. The time has come to examine how we will control what capital does in Canada. That becomes the issue, not where capital comes from.

I encourage the hon. member from Quebec to expand her motion to include B.C. Tel so that we could support it 100 per cent.

The Budget April 15th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, my point has been proven again. I quite agree the government is going in the right direction. But it does not matter how long we proceed or how much slower we proceed to the edge of the waterfall, the waterfall is coming. If we slow down the canoe by paddling backwards slower or faster so that progress toward the edge of the precipice decreases, we are still going to come to the edge of the precipice sooner or later.

With all due respect to those statements, the fact still remains that the debt is increasing and our interest costs are increasing. Unless we change that direction we will not get our debt under control.

The Budget April 15th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather interesting that the member opposite would suggest that the meeting of the target of 2 per cent of GDP is a desirable goal for the deficit.

I wonder if the member recognizes that doing that means a perpetuation of a deficit on a continuing basis. If the gross domestic product should rise, which I hope it will and it looks like it will, it will automatically allow the government flexibility to increase that deficit which means the end result is not a decrease in the government debt but an increase in the government debt.

The very point the hon. member is making is the exact opposite of what he is trying to prove. It it true that there is less of a deficit today than there was last year, and that is commendable, but the point is that even $1 of deficit is too much because it increases the debt. When will the government recognize that to be wise and to be responsible means to tell the truth, the whole truth, not part of it? Tell the people the implications of this debt. Tell them the implications of the interest rates and how it will increase the debt. That is the whole story.

Am I supposed to suggest that everything about this budget is bad? I did not say that. I said tell the truth, tell it the way it really is rather than telling part of the story. That is the issue.

The member makes a big point about being on track and having reached the targets, et cetera. There was a target. It was to eliminate the GST. I ask him, where is the elimination of the GST? That was the promise. That was the promise they campaigned on. Where is it?

The Budget April 15th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I draw the attention of the House on this debate to perhaps a little different approach. I focus it in the words of a professor at a university who was referring to Aristotle, the great teacher and great philosopher about democracy and how it should operate. He said people in government exercise a teaching function. Among other things we, the people, see what they, the government officials, do and think that this is how we should act.

Whether we like it or not the position of legislators in this and many other countries and how they act is somehow interpreted by the people that they should act that way as well.

If we examine this budget from that context and look at the message it sends to the people, in particular to young people, I suggest that there is very little to be proud of. Let us take a few moments to reflect on some of the messages the budget sends.

The first message is if you cannot afford it, borrow it. The second is if you do not want to pay for it, borrow it and tax future generations and/or spread the burden on to others in society. How have Canadians responded to these messages not only in this budget but in previous budgets? This is not a new trend in Canada.

For example, if you cannot afford it, borrow. Personal debt in Canada, including credit card debt, is at an all time high. There is some indication that less than 10 per cent of the disposable income of Canadians is discretionary. In other words, they do not have much flexibility to spend that little bit of income they have left over after they are taxed. Is it any wonder our retailers are crying that people are not buying? Our economy is dying because they cannot buy. How can they? They have borrowed to the maximum. Almost all of their discretionary income is going to paying those debts so they do not have money to spend.

Then the retailers and the other business people ask how can they get them to buy more. They have various schemes like do not pay until next year, do not pay until two years from now, and most recently, do not pay anything until three years from now. That is dangerous.

The second message was if you do not want to pay for it, borrow it and tax future generations and/or spread the burden on others in society. There is a very strong situation today, and some legislation has been introduced in the House, that students do not repay their loans. Is that good? No, it is not. Can we blame them when they look at their government and say the government is not living up to its promises? It borrows to pay the interest on the debt that is outstanding. The students see this and say there is a double standard. The government says to the student "you pay" but when it comes to its own debt it just keeps on borrowing more.

Abuses to the UI system are examples of how we distribute it around to other members of society. Quit a job that one has to work at for 365 days and get a job where one can be employed for 12 weeks and then collect pogey for the other 40 weeks of the year. Who pays for that? Not the individual who incurred it; it is someone else.

The example Canadians see that is set by the federal government in this and previous budgets is one which no one should follow if they want to be in control of their own financial future. The budget is the major policy document of a government and as such ought to be the best example of how Canadians should operate. It does exactly the opposite.

There is another part to this. The budget as it was proposed to us says it is not necessary to tell the whole truth; just tell the people what they want to hear. The deficit is going down which means we are getting closer to balancing the budget. That is good, is it not? So far, so good.

However, do not tell them the debt is actually increasing. Do not tell them the interest is actually increasing. Do not tell them it will continue into the future because there is no plan to eliminate the deficit. Nor is there a target date as to when the budget will be balanced. Do not tell them there will be less disposable income as a result of this budget because taxes will have to increase to pay for it all.

Do not admit that in the election campaign the government promised to kill, slash, eliminate the GST. Instead, quote page 22 of the red book which does not promise to eliminate the GST but to harmonize it.

Do not admit the verbal promises of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister went well beyond the provisions of the red book. Instead, when called to account, they declare: "I am not responsible for what I said. I am only responsible for what is said in the red book". That is quite an example, is it not? It is the wrong example for our young people.

Do not tell them there will be a direct and negative impact on social programs, particularly medicare, education and seniors' pensions. In other words, there will be less money available for these programs.

At the same time, we have the government telling us it is really serious about looking after seniors, making sure their pension benefits will continue, that they will be at least as well off as they are today. How can it be serious about a statement like that when the message the budget sends is different?

At the heart of this comes another issue, freedom or liberty. Probably the most serious implication of this and previous budgets is that this important policy document, especially in our senior government, is the absence of wisdom and responsibility in that budget.

It is not wise to spend more money on government programs than the government collects in revenue. It is not responsible to incur debt in one generation which a future generation will have to service and ultimately repay.

How different the attitude that was just published about Albertans. They were asked in a recent poll what the government should do with the surplus. They said to the government pay down the debt, do not reduce taxes. That is wisdom. They understand that as the debt is paid down, the interest to service that debt comes down. That means even if the taxes are kept at the same level, they will buy more. That is wisdom. That is also responsible.

From that perspective, the Alberta position is the correct position. The position of the federal government says keep on borrowing. It is dishonourable and it is an example that we as Canadians should not follow in our own lives.

The burgeoning debt is the problem. It is the issue. It stands at $581 billion today. We have an interest bill of $47 billion. In the four years, as indicated in the 1996 budget, this contemporary federal government has added over $100 billion to the federal debt.

Why is that important? As has been already indicated, it increases the service costs, particularly the interest payments. Any dollar that is added to the debt will change the amount of interest paid.

Each point of interest has an impact as well. Supposing the interest rates should rise, and it looks like they will, each point rise in the interest rate itself adds $1 billion immediately to the total interest bill.

How much is $1 billion? There is a very interesting bit of arithmetic that somebody did not too long ago. I wish I had the time to figure these things out. Somebody sat down and figured it out. If one counted a number at the rate of one per second consistently, each second there would be a complete number. It would take just short of 32 years to get to $1 billion. That is how much would be added to the interest if the interest rate rises 1 per cent.

Each time that happens it increases the amount of money that future generations will be expected to repay. At present levels of roughly 30 million people in Canada and a federal debt of about $600 billion, that is $20,000 per person. Any child born today comes into the world with a $20,000 debt they will be responsible for in order for us to liquidate that date.

That is what we are doing but is that what Canadians wanted? I do not think so. The number one requirement, which the government hit right on the head when it went into the election, is to create jobs, jobs, jobs. That is exactly what we wanted.

We had over this last week a very interesting development on Friday afternoon and it raises some very interesting questions. For example, airlines in Canada must be 75 per cent owned by Canadians in order to fly but bus lines transporting people on the highways do not have that restriction. What kind of sense does this make? Is this a matter of Canadian culture and Canadian identity or is it about competition and preferential treatment of some over others?

What is it we want to preserve? A viable economy? A Canadian culture? Preservation of our social programs? I say it is all three. We want all of these. Our job should be to establish and maintain a culture which rewards entrepreneurship, innovation and research and ensures a level, competitive and honest workplace and marketplace.

Governments lead by example. I implore the Prime Minister that the government change the example so we can follow it because it reflects wisdom and responsibility, not this last budget which reflects the exact opposite of wisdom and responsibilities; it is neither wise nor responsible.

Canada Business Corporations Act March 28th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-204 presented by the member for Mississauga South. I find myself in considerable agreement with my colleague from the Bloc and in dubious understanding of what Bill C-204 is actually intended to achieve.

On one hand it seems the member is more preoccupied with whether directors exercise the responsibilities they have been elected to carry out and whether they are responsible and acting in a manner that is consistent with what is entrusted to them rather than on whether they are competent.

There is a fundamental difference between doing what one is supposed to be doing and what is expected of that person, rather than if the person does not do those things, it is a function of the person's having too many directorships. That does not follow.

This bill adds a tiny detail to section 105 that says if somebody is a director of 10 companies in which they own less than 5 per cent of the shares, that person cannot be appointed to an additional directorship.

It seems the current act is clear. It lists the things that disqualify a director. One is anyone under age 18. That is reasonable. If they are to manage millions of dollars in some cases, they should be at least of voting age.

Second, anyone who is of unsound mind and who has been so found by a court in Canada or elsewhere. Obviously we would want a director to have a sound mind. Third, a person who is not an individual cannot sit. I am not sure what that means but nevertheless that is what it says here.

It says that anyone shall not be disqualified if he has no shares in a particular company. In other words, a director can be appointed, according to the act, who has no shares in a particular corporation. He is appointed to a particular corporation or to a board of directors because he is judged by someone to have the competence or the ability to do the job.

We need to look at some of the duties a director is supposed to carry out. I think these are rather significant duties. They are not many but they are onerous in terms of carrying them out.

"Every director and officer of a corporation in exercising his power and discharging his duties shall act honestly, in good faith and with a view to the best interests of the corporation; and exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances. Every director and officer of a corporation shall comply with this act, the regulations, articles, bylaws and any unanimous shareholder agreement".

It is very clear what a director shall do. A director shall act honestly, prudently and shall exercise the appropriate skill a prudent person would exercise in a similar situation.

Can one person do those kinds of things for more than one corporation or one company? Of course he can, especially if the series of companies is small. Someone can be a director of a variety of companies because the role and function of a board of directors is not necessarily to manage a company. Its role and primary function is that of determining direction, the overall policy that shall give to that particular corporation its meaning, its raison d'être, and its mission in the kinds of things it wants to perform in that society or in that particular community.

What is the situation if a corporation is large? Let us take a company that we all know, a corporation that is rather mammoth in Canada, Canadian Pacific. This is a major corporation. I remember so clearly that this corporation was supposed to have an evaluation placed on it. A lot of people said what is the word of Canadian Pacific?

About 10 years ago a group of chartered accountants was designated to ask this question and determine the value. It took five years to actually go through all of the books, the assets and liabilities to determine the net value of Canadian Pacific Railway.

The things it discovered in the first five years had no value after five years because they were dated. They were either of greater value or lessor value depending on what happened in spending and what happened in the economy. It came to the conclusion that it was really a judgment call as to the real value.

How can one director, even if he is only a director of Canadian Pacific, determine in detail what is happening in that corporation? He cannot, obviously.

This act makes it very clear that these kinds of things have to be delegated. The hon. member knows this full well. He said we wanted as professional accountants to conduct audits so that we can give true direction and meaning to a particular corporation.

That was made very clear in the provisions of the existing act. A board of directors is not liable. A director is not liable under sections 118, 119 or 122 if he relies in good faith on financial statements of the corporation represented to him by an officer of the corporation or in a written report of the auditor or the corporation fairly to reflect the financial condition of the corporation, or a report of a lawyer, accountant, engineer, appraiser or other person whose profession lends credibility to a statement made by him.

It is pretty clear that a board of directors that listens to the advice of its professional people is probably acting more prudently, more responsibly, more honestly, more in the interests of the corporation than a director who assumes all that responsibility and says: "I know because I have the duty to exercise prudence and to exercise honesty". It would not be honest for a director to take the position of knowing everything that goes on in a corporation. If he is really to do the job he is to rely on the professionals who know what is happening and whose job it is to come to him with information he can evaluate.

They have to be competent in order to do that. The act tells us very clearly that is precisely what is expected of a board of directors. The implication that somehow the director should do this is simply misleading.

The suggestion made is that somehow an individual who owns 5 per cent or more of the stock of a particular company could have an unlimited number of directorships. The only determining factor seems to be owning less than 5 per cent. There seems to be a connection between the ability to direct and the amount of shares or ownership a person has in a particular company.

That is ludicrous. It does not make any sense. I do not think the amount of shares a person owns in a company will make them any more or any less competent. There is a pecuniary interest. There may be a vested interest. However, that does not make a person competent to make good decisions. It is a completely different issue. We need to recognize those kinds of differences.

There was also a point made about liability, that a director can be held liable. He should be. If a director is not exercising the responsibilities accorded to him, if he is not delivering on the duties extended to him by the corporation or by the act, he should

be held liable. However, he cannot be held liable if he is getting the best advice, as he knows it and understands it, and then makes decisions.

Does that mean he will always get the right advice? No. Does it mean he will always make the right decisions? No. Does it mean he can make a mistake in the sense that acting on the best advice available to him he still made a mistake? Yes.

The responsibility is whether he acted in the best interests of the corporation, as he saw it, on the best advice available. If that is the case, it does not matter how many directorships he has.