1983-06-03

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, it is reported that on June 1 the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) warned the UN Secretary-General, Javier Perez de Cuella, that Canada might withdraw its troops from the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus. In so doing, the Secretary of State for External Affairs obviously reflected growing Canadian frustration at the apparent inability of the Turkish and the Greek Governments to reach a peaceful and equitable solution to the Cypriot problem.
Therefore, in the interest of the two disputing parties, of the Canadian public, and of the Canadian Armed Forces themselves, I propose that the question be brought to the attention of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for further investigation and discussion, and that the same Committee be empowered to study Canada's more general role as peacekeeper.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, there is, in Canada, something basically sick about our medical and hospital system. There are, at one and the same time, medical facilities boarded up, medical personnel unemployed or underemployed, and people who need medical attention, particularly surgery, who are unable to obtain services or who are forced to wait for excessively long periods of time. It is not uncommon for Canadians to go to the U.S.A. for medical treatment because they are unable to obtain it here.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) reduces, or threatens to reduce, payments to the Provinces and then, for crass political purposes, condemns her provincial
counterparts when they take the only steps available to them to help defray costs.
It is time we made a serious examination of our medical and hospital system with a view to removing the distortions, inconveniences, and dangers which have become endemic within it.


THE LATE STAN ROGERS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, last evening 23 people died while coming home on Flight 797 from Dallas to Toronto. Among them was Stan Rogers, who lived in and sang about all the different parts of this country of ours, who sang about the hopes and dreams, all the promise of our land. He always sang about his Canada, and the people who make it great, the farmers and fishermen, those in the industrial plants and on the northern frontier. Some of his words:
For the good times come and go, but at least there's rain
So this won't be barren ground when September rolls around.
So watch the fields behind the plow turn to straight dark rows,
Put another season's promise in the ground.
That was from "The Field Behind the Plow", for Saskatchewan grain farmers.
Some more is for workers, from "Working Joe"-for Dad:
Time was when a fella could just let time slip away,
No worries, car or telephone, just rent and food to pay . ..
But now there's just too much to do in any given day;
The car, the phone, the kiddies' shoes, too many bills to pay ...
Oh it's sure sweet to sit at home and let time slip away,
Through tomorrow I'll be scratching through another day.
I am sure all Hon. Members of the House extend their sincere condolences to the friends and relatives, the bereaved, of those who died so tragically yesterday.


Madam Speaker:: I am sure the House would want to respect those feelings but I must remind the Hon. Member, although I did let him go on, that statements under Standing Order 21 are not to be used for this particular purpose but to allow Hon. Members to make statements on issues with which they are concerned. Of course we are concerned about terrible accidents of this nature, but perhaps Hon. Members would want to refer to them at another time.

June 3, 1983


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, on March 30 I rose in the House of Commons to protest the inequity of Section 30(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act. That Section required that an applicant for maternity benefits prove her pregnancy. As a consequence, adoptive parents were effectively denied the receipt of maternity benefits.
Section 30(1) was profoundly inequitable. Clearly, the general need for maternal care of the adopted newborn is as great as that required for the biological newborn to whose parents we have provided maternity benefits for many years.
As we all know, the inequity of Section 30(1) was eliminated yesterday by the passage of Bill C-156, which will provide either of the adopting parents up to 15 weeks of maternity benefits provided that he or she had met usual criteria of 20 weeks' employment in the previous 12 months.
I was particularly pleased to see the introduction, and passage by unanimous consent, of Bill C-156. I was also pleased to note an editorial, in the Edmonton Journal, entitled "No Less a Parent". The editorial, which was supportive of the extension of maternity benefits to adoptive parents, stated:
Employment Minister Lloyd Axworthy should be commended for his proposal to extend maternity benefits to adoptive parents.
I agree with the Edmonton Journal, Madam Speaker.


FORESTRY
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, in Canada the ravages of insect disease and fire consume almost as much forest growth as the forest industry itself.
[DOT] (mo)
Forests in New Brunswick cover 88.4 per cent of the land area. Most of this forest land, 15 million acres, is productive and represents an area equal to the combined areas of Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachussetts. The forest industry is the largest in New Brunswick, representing one-third of the employment in the manufacturing sector and 40 per cent of its output.
Direct employment in the primary and secondary sectors of the forest products industry involves some 16,000 persons, with indirect employment accounting for between 15,000 to 20,000 persons. More important is the fact that, of all sectors of the provincial economy, the forest products sector is unique in that it plays an important economic role in virtually all regions of the Province, in both rural and urban economies.
Because of the spruce budworm infestation, in southern New Brunswick in the 70s there was a loss of between six million and ten million cords of softwood. This approaches an
eight-years' supply of wood for the principal consumer and employer in that area.
The House of Commons forestry committee has begun an investigation into budworm depredations in New Brunswick. I thank the Minister for this move to maintain the forest industry which is nearly 30 per cent of New Brunswick's GNP. We must recognize the fact that this must be addressed as a farm type operation, and we must reconcile the conflict of environment and forest interests. The federal Government should lead in such an effort.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I am sure you are aware that there is a possibility of a grain port shutdown on the West Coast. In particular, there is a possibility of a lockout. Nine days ago, on May 25, I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) a question about the possibility of appointing a conciliation commissioner or a board to try to make sure there was no shutdown, because this is a very vital time for the shipment of grain for western Canadian farmers. We are coming to the end of a crop year. It is a very important time and we cannot afford to have any kind of a shutdown which will jeopardize the economy of western Canada. The grain trade last year, for example, gave Canada a $5 billion export crop, and this is very important for the economy as a whole.
It is very important that the Government across the way should not once again sacrifice western Canada, as it is trying to do with the Crow Bill which is before the House. If it is going to reject the suggestion of a conciliation commissioner or a conciliation board, it should look at some other ideas.
I would like to suggest to the Government that it look at the possibility to talking to both the grain handlers and the elevator companies about the feasibility of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall mediating a settlement in this particular dispute. I remind you, Madam Speaker, that Mr. Justice Emmett Hall has a good reputation. In the past he has frequently been a mediator and conciliator. He has been very successful, and 1 am sure he will be accepted by both Parties. I ask this because we cannot afford to have a shutdown of the grain export industry-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, an Associate Professor
June 3, 1983

of Sociology living in my riding, but who teaches at the University of Waterloo, is concerned over a current audit of his income tax returns for the past ten years. This young man, a PhD, has cerebral palsy, which incapacitates him as far as writing is concerned. It is impossible to complete any of his work without extra secretarial and research assistance. He is concerned with that portion of the Income Tax Act which states that an employee cannot use another employee to do his or her work.
In pursuing this audit, I would ask Revenue Canada to study Recommendation 46 of the "Obstacles" Report in which the federal Government is advised to amend the Income Tax Act which states that goods and services currently included in medical expenses deductions and which are clearly attributable to a severe, prolonged disability, be transferred to a proposed disability deduction. It further recommended that the current flat rate deduction be replaced by a disability deduction whereby a person may claim for himself the full costs of goods and services directly attributable to severe and prolonged disability. These changes would amend the Income Tax Act to offset the cost of disability, such as in the case of the Associate Professor at the University of Waterloo.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Minister, to whom I have obviously given notice, to bring us up to date on the tragedy in the sky which happened to Air Canada last night. In posing my question, may I, on behalf of my Party, extend our condolences to the families of those who lost their lives, and commend the professionalism of the crew who were able to bring the plane down, thus averting an even greater loss of life.
S)


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, would you allow me to join with my two colleagues who have previously expressed the regrets and sympathies of Members of this House and, I might add, of the Government of Canada, to the families affected by this very sad accident.
I do not have very many details because the investigation is obviously still in progress. As my hon. friend knows, the National Transportation Safety Board in the United States in proceeding to inquire, for example by questioning the survivors. Twenty-three passengers died, 16 are still in hospital but are expected to be released within 24 hours. So the investigation is on. A Canadian observer, as in the tradition between Canada and the U.S., has joined the inquiry team.
Oral Questions
I might add, with great sadness, that this accident is very unfortunate because, among other bad effects, it breaks the three-year safety record of the seven major Canadian airlines. Three years without an accident was a wonderful record and we deplore the fact that it came to an end in such a dramatic way yesterday.


ATTENDANCE OF CANADIAN OBSERVER AT INVESTIGATION IN UNITED STATES
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's answer. I also understand why he cannot give too many details at this time. However, concerning the observer he mentioned, may I have some assurance from him, even at this early stage, that the responsible Canadian authorities, be it an observer or otherwise, will be involved in the investigation so that in time we here will know through our own responsible officials just exactly what happened, so that this type of thing will not take place again?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is the case, Madam Speaker, but the law and the tradition dictate that the place where the accident takes place commands jurisdiction over the inquiry. So if an accident takes place in the United States involving a Canadian plane, it is the American investigatory organization that does the work. If an accident happened in Canada involving an American carrier, the situation would be reversed. This is the practice between the two countries.
Obviously our observer is there and will do his job and he will know as much as the Americans will on the subject of the causes of the accident. But the causes are unknown now. Reference was made to a fire in the washroom, but I am advised by experts not to jump to conclusions before the investigation takes place.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board as the watchdog of the public purse. When it was suggested by the media that Maislin Transport had lost $20 million in 1982 the President stated that somebody was lying. He then put that lie to rest when he filed financial statements showing a loss of $19.9 million in 1982. In view of that lack of accountability, when will the Government take action to appoint its own director to the board of Maislin Transport?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, this matter is one which is under the carriage of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I will have to check with him and inform myself about it and get back to my hon. friend.

June 3, 1983
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT GOVERN MENT TAKE ACTION
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, despite the continuing losses Maislin is currently waging a price war on the rest of the Canadian trucking industry. Their ads brag that they are number one in pricing, still number one in North America, and number one in the hearts of the Liberal Party- no, I am sorry, that is not in the ad. But since the Canadian taxpayer is financing this price war on the rest of the Canadian trucking industry, does the Minister not agree that the Government should take steps immediately to appoint a director to the Maislin board of directors?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I will have to bring this aspect of the Hon. Member's inquiry to the attention of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but it is my understanding that his officials are keeping in touch with the company.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. For the last year and more the Government has argued that as a member of NATO it is incumbent upon us to participate in the development of NATO weaponry, namely, the Cruise missile. Yet this week at the NATO Defence Ministers' meeting in Brussels three European members, Greece, Spain, and Denmark, refused to endorse plans to deploy Cruise and Pershing II missiles in Europe later this year. They are not being viewed as second class members. Will the Government follow the lead of these countries and withdraw its support from this escalation of the arms race?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, we have not supported the escalation of the arms race. This past week at Williamsburg the Canadian Government did everything possible to take a stand that would reduce the arms race and bring about results in the negotiations in Geneva.
I assure my hon. friend that one of the principal objectives that we pursued at Williamsburg, I think with some success, was to stress the importance of making progress at Geneva in order to reduce or possibly eliminate the necessity of deployment of missiles in Europe.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: At the same time as the Minister tell us this, the Minister of National Defence is in Europe endorsing the deployment of Cruise and Pershing-Two missiles in Europe later this year.


PROPOSED TESTING OF CRUISE MISSILE
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, on another front on the Cruise issue, yesterday the U.S. Air Force cancelled further tests of the air launched Cruise missile because both tests of the integrated system have resulted in crashes. Last night on The Journal, an American observer said that it was entirely possible that a Cruise missile flying over Alberta could take a sharp turn and crash into a populated area. Have these developments changed the Government's thinking about the proposed testing in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the developments have not changed the course of events in any way that I can see. Of course, the first point is that the United States still has to make a request to the Government of Canada to test the Cruise missile. When that request comes forward we can examine whether these events to which the Hon. Member refers has any bearing upon our decision. It seems to me that they do not have very much bearing.


RAILWAYS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister will know that many Canadians are concerned about whether there will be further reductions in rail passenger service across the country. Will the Minister assure the House that there will be no further cut-backs in rail passenger service anywhere in Canada during the next five years?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, that is the type of promise that I always refuse to make because one must not promise more than one can deliver.
As a general proposition, I have repeatedly said that there was no massive or substantial cuts being planned now. There might be an occasional cut or addition, but nothing like what the Minister of Transport did two years ago.


ORDERS FOR ROLLING STOCK-SERVICE BETWEEN CALGARY AND EDMONTON
David Kilgour: Madam
Speaker, will the Minister tell us whether or not any new rolling stock equipment is being ordered for the existing rail passenger service outside of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor?
Will he also tell us why the VIA train between Calgary and Edmonton is now out of action, as I understand it because CP has decided to take up the rails on the northern part of that route just as we are approaching the University Games when we hope some people will be arriving at Edmonton from Calgary by train?
June 3, 1983


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, there is an order for ten new sets of LRCs in addition to the ten that have already been delivered. This is a substantial increase and progress in the modernization of the equipment. As to where it will be used, the basic problem is maintaining facilities. VIA does not have the money to establish maintenance facilities in all parts of Canada. That will be a limiting factor in diversifying the location of the LRCs.


WILLIAMSBURG SUMMIT-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON PROTECTIONISM
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He will recall that I asked him a question last week in regard to his statements on free trade and protectionism. Subsequent to his visit to Williamsburg there seems to be very little news of what transpired and whether he was able to make any inroads in trying to accomplish fair trade while avoiding so-called free trade. What protections have come in to protect this country against protectionist policies in other parts of the world?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 think I told the Hon. Member the last time we had an exchange of questions and answers that at no time have I used the expression free trade. I have not used it at Williamsburg. But if the Hon. Member looks at the Williamsburg declaration he will find there is a particular paragraph in that declaration dealing with protectionism. There the Summit leaders undertook to resist further protectionist measures. That is of benefit to Canada.
The Hon. Member has asked me what actions were taken to help Canada. If other countries decide to avoid protectionism, that is of benefit to Canada. Further they agreed that, as the recovery proceeds, they would attempt to reduce the existing protectionism. I think the key point in that particular paragraph is the undertaking by the Summit leaders to monitor the implementation of their commitments. That is a new element that has not been evident in previous commitments at the Summit.


AUTOMOTIVE TRADE
Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, did the Secretary of State for External Affairs have an opportunity to discuss with the Americans and/or the Japanese the present status of the auto pact between the U.S. and Canada, and did he have an opportunity to discuss any protectionist policies that the Japanese have with regard to their automobile industry? Did the Secretary of State for External Affairs have an opportunity to discuss with either of those two countries the status that Canada would be left in when GATT runs out and when we get into a period of free trade?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member uses the expression fair play. It is one of those elusive expressions that seldom is defined-


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Like participatory democracy.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and that is used to suit whatever is in the user's mind. Sometimes it is a cover for the word protectionism. I hope that is not what is in the Hon. Member's mind.
Specifically, in reply to the Hon. Member's question, we did not discuss the auto pact as a specific subject in any discussions that I attended. It is a very relevant matter, of course, but it was not specifically discussed. The discussions were general with respect to trade and what we would do to avoid protectionism at this particular time.


HOUSING
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works who answers in this House for housing. There was a story in this morning's The Globe and Mail, which reads in part:
The federal Government is considering pulling out of a joint federal-provincial subsidized housing program in Ontario-
That program, as the hon. gentleman knows, is for the purpose of non-profit housing, senior citizens, housing and private co-operatives, a very important part of the housing mix in Canada. The story is attributed to officials. Is the Government contemplating such a move?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, there is no active discussion of a move to pull out of the program. Certainly I would not do it without having proper discussions.
There are a couple of realities. I find very often that provinces and municipalities tend to forget that the federal Government pays a very large percentage, if not the totality, of some of the social housing programs. I have had to remind a certain number of people over the past months that surely taxpayers were entitled to know where the money came from when projects were being either announced or opened.
On the other question as to whether or not I find that Provinces are doing enough in social housing, I have to say, Madam Speaker, that, in the light of the numbers waiting in the line for social housing, I hope other people will do more. That includes the Provinces, the municipalities, and whomever else wants to join in. We can take all the help we can get.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I never quarrel with the thought that the federal Government should get credit for its contribution in the social housing field, but I

June 3, 1983
Oral Questions
think it is quite important that it maintain itself in the programs of housing, and I am very pleased to hear that the Minister has indicated that there is no intention of withdrawing.


REQUEST THAT FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE BE CONVENED
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Public Works. Does he recall that 1 asked him, prior to the last budget, whether or not it was his intention to convene a federal-provincial conference on housing? There are things that should be worked out between the two levels of Government in terms of credit, in terms of contribution, in terms of the mode of housing or the type of housing that would be provided and that which may be needed. The Minister said that he would wait until after the budget. It is now after the budget. Is that within the contemplation of the Minister? If it is, when would he think such a conference might be held?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his question. The agreement is basically one that the Canadian Government had suggested a month ago. First, the fishermen and Madelipeche may resume their activities, and we would have preferred this to happen at the same time the rest of Pecheurs-Unis members will be resuming operations; second, the trusteeship is no longer exclusively under provincial authority-a suggestion that was made by the Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine-and a third administrator has been appointed, the only one who lives on the Islands, namely, Mr. Laurie Delaney; third, the Government of Quebec has promised not to take Pecheurs-Unis to court as it was threatening to do, which was in the trusteeship legislation, and because it would not make sense to reopen a plant that might lead to others being closed down. Most important of all, the manoeuvre to get the authority for issuing permits from the Government of Canada did not succeed. We have found a temporary solution, but the Government of Canada is reserving the right to review its position after the current fishing season.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, if I felt that solutions to some of the problems which are now on the table could be seriously advanced by a conference, obviously I would not hesitate. However, as I look at the issues in relation to housing between the Provinces and the federal Government, they are mainly bilateral issues, either on the way this or that government operates its housing program.
I have also looked at the record of past conferences, and I did not find them particularly encouraging. However, I keep an open mind. I expect to meet a number of my counterparts in Moncton next week. Perhaps out of those conversations with the Federation of Municipalities will come a proposal, but I am not pushing for it at the moment.


FISHERIES
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and concerns the very serious situation in which Madelipeche fishermen find themselves as a result of action taken by the Government of the Province of Quebec. I am aware of the many representations the Minister has made, in an attempt to prevent these fishermen and many subcontractors and suppliers from going bankrupt, and of the lack of cooperation shown by the provincial Government and the many obstacles that Government has laid in the way of a settlement. I wonder whether the Minister could inform the House about an agreement which has been concluded in the interests of Madelipeche fishermen, in spite of everything and despite the actions of the provincial Government?
* *
*


PRICE OF CRUDE OIL SOLD TO JAPAN
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Could the Minister confirm that Canadian light crude oil is being sold to Japan at firesale prices by Dome Petroleum? I believe it is at $2 per barrel below current world prices. If that is indeed happening, could he say whether the sales are being made with the approval of the National Energy Board and/or the approval of the Canadian Government, and how extensive are these sales?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, these sales have been approved by the National Energy Board. They have controlled the price. Of course the type of crude offered for sale is not of the type requested or favoured by Canadian refineries because of its sulphur content and so on. The price has been very competitive in the world market today. There is a world price set, the normal price, but there is always a variation in the price according to the quality of the crude.


INQUIRY RESPECTING EFFECT ON FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, could the Minister explain the effect of such under the counter sales, as it were, on the oil pricing agreement between Alberta and the federal Government? Does this kind of transaction not have the result of making Canadian light crude available to Japanese refineries at a price a good deal
June 3, 1983

lower than that at which it is available to refineries in Ontario and Quebec?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, with his usual style the Hon. Member said, "under the counter". It was approved by the NEB and it was made public by the NEB. It was made at the request of the Alberta Government, which was complaining for months and months that there were big shut-in problems in Alberta. His own Party's energy critic made representations to me in committee and in the House that we should sell more oil from Alberta to the markets of the world. I am very surprised that there is not better co-ordination in the Opposition than that on an oil policy, after listening to the leadership candidates. Even after appearing in front of the court in Alberta, they are still wavering about their oil policies in the Tory Party.


PRICES CHARGED TO DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN REFINERIES
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. I appeal to him to answer my last question. The answer he gave had nothing to do with the question. My question was: will these sales result in lower prices to Japanese refineries than to refineries in Ontario and Quebec?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I said earlier that the refineries in Quebec and Ontario did not want this type of crude. They prefer better quality than this. The NEB looked into the problem. In response to the producers and the Alberta Government, the NEB decided to permit the export of crude. If some refineries in Quebec and Ontario want that type of crude, they will not be surplus to Canadian needs. If the Tory Party wants us to make sure that there are many shut-ins in the oil industry in Alberta, it will be very easy for us to arrange.


QUALITY OF CRUDE OIL EXPORTED TO JAPAN
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, continuing on the subject of the export of light crude, I would like to direct a question to the Minister concerning Japanese evaluation of that crude. Confidential correspondence indicates that Japanese buyers of Dome crude said that it is good or better than Saudi Arabian or Oman light crude.
We are exporting light crude oil in tanker lots. We have increased them, and we are increasing our exports of light crude into the United States. We are increasing the export of distillates as well into the United States and other markets. It appears that we are prepared to sell ourselves out of some of the best low priced energy resource which we have, and to give Canadians in the future an opportunity to depend upon very high priced crude.
Could the Minister explain the contradiction in his remarks to the Leader of the Opposition as opposed to the Japanese correspondence? Will he tell us why he is prepared literally to
Oral Questions
cut the throats of Canadians in terms of their future dependence on very high priced offshore and frontier oil?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, in terms of the quality of that crude, my information is that the NEB looked into it and indicated that it was the type of crude in which Canadian refineries were not interested. They probably do not have the same type of equipment as the Japanese to use it. It might be good for the Japanese but it is not the type of crude Canadian refineries want. If the Hon. Member does not know about it, some oil is not recouperable. This is why it is desirable to maintain a high level of production in the oil fields. Otherwise we lose some of the resource. At the same time the money received from that is some cash flow which can be used in Canada to develop more oil.


Erik Nielsen: Cash flow to Dome.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: People are asking us to maintain a very good, lively oil and gas industry in Canada. This is exactly what I am trying to do at this time. If Hon. Members do not want us to sell oil or gas outside Canada, we might shut down the industry and there will be more unemployed in Canada.


Raymond John Skelly: The Minister of Energy, in that bag full of hot air and words, is trying to avoid the question of the total failure of the national energy policy. We are selling out a scarce and valuable resource because the Government has placed itself in such a desperate position.


PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT OIL UPGRADER IN WESTERN CANADA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I ask the Minister, if he is interested in helping out the oil industry, when he will go ahead with an upgrader in western Canada. An upgrader would provide the kind of economic stimulation, energy security, and job creation that the country needs. When will he develop an appropriate energy policy instead of the desperation sell-out bids that he is promoting now?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member talks as if he were full of hot air, but if he knew the facts he would recognize that this year is the first year in a long time that we in Canada have produced more oil than we are consuming. It is false for a person to say that the energy policies of the Government are not working. They are evidently working because we are producing more oil than we can consume, for the first time in many years.
In terms of the development of upgraders, we are at this time in negotiation with officials of the Government of Saskatchewan about the possibility of having an upgrader built in Saskatchewan, but we have not resolved the problem with those who want to invest in it. If there is to be development of upgraders and so on, the industry must have enough cash to

June 3, 1983
Oral Questions
put into the project. If the industry is closed down, there will not be enough cash to develop upgraders.


FISHERIES
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and concerns the commercial salmon fishery of New Brunswick which will open in about ten days and which will be of six weeks' duration, with an imposed quota. As the Minister knows, this year's quota is a global one rather than one which is directed to individual fishermen. It is conceivable that two or three of the better equipped and bigger fishermen will be able to fill the entire quota in a very short period of time. Would the Minister give consideration to having a quota directed to each fisherman rather than a global quota for the entire fishery?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is tackling one of the thorniest issues in the management of salmon fisheries in the Atlantic. I can assure the Hon. Member that his suggestion for a way to ensure a stable income for fishermen while not depleting the stock will be studied very carefully. As he knows, the report I have received from the biologists indicates that the salmon stock is extremely low at this moment and that all participants in the fishery industry in the Atlantic must share in the reduction of their quota. I will certainly look at the Hon. Member's suggestion.


HOUSING
Hon. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works who is the Minister responsible for housing. According to estimates forecast by the Conference Board of Canada, Government borrowing this year will be equal to about 85 per cent of personal savings in Canada. As private sector loan demands increase, upward pressure will be placed on interest rates, particularly mortgage interest rates. That leads me to ask what has become of what was once a pet project of the Minister, the Mortgage Rate Insurance Program. Before the budget, the Minister told us that he could see the Program being implemented even without a budget provision. What has become of that? Is it the policy of the Government, now that interest rates are down, that we should not even think about a program designed to ensure against another increase in mortgage rates?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, without accepting the premise that the Hon. Member's question is based upon, I would say to him that we are working on the plan. We had hoped to have it ready. However, we ran into some difficulties which are now being ironed out by testing the plan from an actuarial point of view. If those technical difficulties can be sorted out, we may be able to go ahead with the plan. I think that now is certainly the time to encourage people to feel secure about mortgages if they do become involved in them, and that is why, as soon as we are ready to proceed, and if I get the approval of my colleagues, we will certainly proceed.


PLIGHT OF HOME OWNERS WITH HIGH INTEREST RATE MORTGAGES
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, that leads me to my next question which concerns the plight of those unfortunate Canadians who were forced to renew their mortgages at a time when mortgage interest rates were about twice what they are now. Will there be any possible relief for these people? Has the Minister discussed this situation with his colleague, the Minister of Finance? Can he offer us any hope, through putting pressure on the banks and the mortgage companies, that these people will be given an opportunity to renew their mortgages without penalty so that they can take advantage of present mortgage interest rates?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I certainly do recognize the problem and I have discussed it with my colleague, the Minister of Finance. In fact the Minister has indicated in the House that such cases of a clearly unfair nature should be brought to his attention. I can think of no better way to bring an issue to the attention of banks and mortgage companies than to bring it to the attention of the Minister of Finance. I encourage him in his efforts.


CRUDE OIL PRICING POLICIES
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister seems to be worried about the energy policies of the Progressive Conservative Party. I think he should concern himself with getting his act together on behalf of the Government of Canada. In particular, in the last few days there have been conflicting press reports referring to the Government's plans in terms of crude oil pricing. The first report indicated that the Cabinet had decided there would be no change in the energy pricing agreement, even though it is hopelessly obsolete. This report was followed by a denial and an indication that the Government is still discussing it.
The Minister says that he is worried about industry cash flows and industry investment. He knows that the greatest curtailment to investment is uncertainty over the Minister's continuous foot-dragging and inability to have himself and the
June 3, 1983

rest of his Cabinet colleagues address the problem of Canada's crude oil pricing policies. When can we expect an answer from the Government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I have said all along that the deadline for fixing the price is July 1. The decision is not a decision to be made by the federal Government alone. At this time I am negotiating with officials of the Government of Alberta. On Tuesday I met with the Energy Minister for Alberta, and I requested another meeting next week. There will be a meeting of sorts as he is coming to town for another purpose, but he wanted to postpone the meeting to the week after that. I think that the Hon. Member cannot reproach me simply because I am negotiating with the Government of Alberta. The Government of Alberta has something to say in that regard as well, and it is a very complex problem.
It is very interesting to see that, despite the leadership candidates' appearance before a court in Alberta, the Tories are not of one mind about what should be done about the price of oil. After hearing the Leader of the Opposition asking me not to sell oil abroad, and after hearing the Hon. Member continually asking me to sell more than we are selling today, I am not impressed at all with the position that is being taken at this time. We are self-sufficient in oil, and the industry is now in a better mood than it has been in for years.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the Minister's last statement is almost beyond belief. Only 26 per cent of the drilling rigs in the country are in operation at this time. Unemployment in the oil industry is in the tens of thousands. If he calls that a good mood, he is dreaming. If the Minister wants this Party to take over the energy policy in the country, we are prepared to do so and we will have Canadians satisfied, both consumers and producers.
As the Minister knows, the natural gas industry is in a state of crisis. There are literally scores of Bills before the American Congress to penalize Canadian gas producers. The situation is critical. He knows that the negotiations with Alberta are complete-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I do not see when the Hon. Member will ask his question. I think he should do so right now.


GAS EXPORT PRICES
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, when will the Minister make the annoucement about natural gas export prices which would have been made several months ago if it were made by a competent Government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I am amazed and amused when I hear the Hon. Member speaking about our energy policy. The Tories were in power for seven months. At that time two Tory Governments were negotiating and could not come to an agreement in seven months. Because they had a lousy energy
Oral Questions
policy, they eventually lost the confidence of the House and the confidence of the people of Canada. I believe that the Tories' record on this policy is so shameful that I would rather not talk about it.
In terms of making a decision about the question, I said that I am in negotiation with Alberta and I hope we will have a comprehensive agreement on all these items with the Tory Government of Alberta.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General, whose whereabouts are secret even from his own office, and in the absence of the Prime Minister, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Solicitor General discussed the supposed need for his proposed new Security Service to invade the confidentiality of census records. Is it the Government's intention to invade the confidentiality of records already collected which were given with the understanding that they would be kept confidential? All Canadians, I would remind him, are required to answer these questions. Or is it the Government's intention only to invade the confidentiality of future records?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the Bill has been given first reading. The intentions of the Government are declared in the Bill as can be found by an examination of the Bill. It will go to a committee and all the concerns and requests for information can be dealt with at that time.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, the Bill refers to records. Let us assume that that means confidential records in the census will be violated according to the Government's intention, if the legislation is passed.
Would the Minister specify what other records the Government has the intention of invading-records of clients in lawyers' offices for example; files of discussions between a lawyer and client? What about medical records in doctors' offices? What about mail to Members of Parliament from constituents? And what about the confessional box?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is taking a rather extreme flight of fancy in reciting all these possible dire actions by the Government. I am sure the Hon. Member knows that access to records containing

June 3, 1983
Oral Questions
personal information, whether held by the federal Government, the provincial Governments or the private sector, can only be had either by consent or by judicial warrant. It is not about to happen in the way the Hon. Member describes, as if the Government had ready access or the Security Service had ready access. That is not the case. It cannot happen unless there is a judicial warrant issued under very specific circumstances.
I make that reply in order to clarify the misinformation that has been put forward by the Hon. Member. As I said earlier, the place to debate this is not on the Orders of the Day but when the Bill comes up on second reading and when it goes to the Committee.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On Tuesday, May 31, the Newfoundland Government amended its Public Service Collective Bargaining Act specifically to remove collective bargaining rights from anyone working on an Employment Opportunity Program funded by the federal or provincial Governments.
Did the Minister have prior knowledge of the intention of the Newfoundland Government to take this action and, if so, does the Minister approve of the removal of collective bargaining rights from those persons who are employed under federally funded programs? If so, does the Minister not believe that this action by the Newfoundland Government is a denial of basic rights that Canadians have fought for, and is an inappropriate action? Does he not think that he and his Government should make representations to ensure that such action cannot be taken with regard to projects funded by the federal Government?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, in all cases in federal job programs we have been particularly careful to ensure that there would be no intrusion into the normal workings of labour and management or collective bargaining arrangements. We have gone out of our way to meet with a number of unions, particularly Public Service unions, to ensure that job-creation programs would not overlap. As the Hon. Member knows, we do not have control over decisions made by a provincial Government.
I will certainly undertake to look into the problem and raise it with the Labour Minister in Newfoundland to see if it intrudes in any way upon the agreements that we have with them for joint funding of job-creation programs. I will report back to the Hon. Member.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. He will know that a conference was held in January under the auspices of the Department of Employment and Immigration and was filmed by the CBC. The consequence of all that was that an injunction was taken against the showing of the film. Would the Minister confirm that the CBC had decided not to air the film ultimately made, with effectively $200,000 of public money? Will he tell the House what action he has taken with regard to those who authorized that expenditure for a film that cannot be aired?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, perhaps I can answer the Hon. Member's question in part. I do not think it is worth while engaging in speculation on management choices in the CBC. As far as the film is concerned, an arrangement was entered into with Mr. Allan King and the Mengen Institution. Mr. King is a well known documentary film maker who has conducted some of the most important and prize-winning documentaries made in this country over the past several years. The contract arrangement we have with him was not in any way to have any editorial control. As we have discussed in the House many times, there is a very serious and tragic plight that people who are unemployed go through. It was important for other Canadians who had the advantage of having a job to understand that.
The point of the film was to try to undertake both the research and the analysis so that other Canadians would understand that kind of condition. I hope that the kind of filming that was done-and I have not seen it so I do not know what it contains-but I know the objective was a worthwhile one-I hope it has some public distribution.


PUBLIC FUNDING OF FILM
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, given that answer, my next question is addressed to the Minister of Communications. If the film was that valuable why will the public not be able to see it? They can only have it one way, Madam Speaker. Either it is a worth-while film commissioned by the Government of Canada with the people's money and should be seen, or some officials of the Government of Canada made a serious error of judgement in the way the film was commissioned and made. Which of those propositions does the Government admit to be true?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, when we are talking about programming, the decision about what type of program is going to be aired over the CBC is made by CBC management and no one else. It is up to CBC management to decide whether it wants to air the film and whether that film is appropriate for airing at a specific time. The bottom line is
June 3, 1983

that the CBC and not the Government is responsible for programming.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence of the Prime Minister. One of the Prime Minister's interventions early at the Summit conference was that France and Britain should be prepared to negotiate concerning their independently controlled strategic nuclear forces as if those forces were part of NATO's intermediate range nuclear force. This representation had been made quite frequently in international circles before, but usually by Russia.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister indicate what purpose the Prime Minister had and what results were obtained by the Prime Minister, acting as Russia's advocate in this particular area where he seemed to be suggesting that Britain and France should throw away the only bargaining chip they have in this matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer that question. I can certainly remove from the Hon. Member's mind, I trust, the mistaken impressions he has about the discussions at Williamsburg.
At no point did Canada press that the British and French nuclear forces should be put into the INF negotiations. That was not pressed by Canada, nor did we ask that these particular nuclear national strategic forces go into the INF negotiations. What we did suggest with respect to that particular aspect, or at least what we questioned, was whether the type of document we were attempting to put together ought to include specific references to various negotiating positions that had been adopted. This is one particular negotiating position that has been adopted and which Canada accepts. The question is whether this document was an appropriate place for the inclusion.
I think the Hon. Member is also mistaken when he states that this is a view on substance which is taken only by Russia. I could cite some rather important persons in the West who say, at a certain point, the British and French strategic deterrents ought to be included in some way in the negotiation, not in the INF, but, rather, in some future negotiation.
Point of Order-Mr. Blenkarn


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Of course that is the attitude of the Prime Minister that they should be included, and it is well known that he said so himself.


RESULTS OF SUMMIT CONFERENCE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in his own role. The Minister told reporters after the conference that he was very pleased with the results of the arms control talks among the seven Summit leaders. The leaders rejected the Prime Minister's suggestion about the weapons of Britain and France. Instead, in their communique, which particularly singled that out, the seven leaders stated:
Attempts to divide the West by proposing inclusion of the deterrent forces of the third countries, such as those of France and the United Kingdom, will fail-
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why he was so pleased that the Prime Minister failed in his effort to have them included?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member ought to be told that the Canadian delegation did have quite an influence on the drafting of the communique and the declaration. He might be pleased to know that the declaration on arms and security originated with a Canadian idea.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) on Thursday, June 2, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Madam Speaker:: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order which was raised on April 27 by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) concerning the procedur and the acceptability of two votes on one statutory item. The Hon. Member is not in the House today. The ruling could be delayed. I believe. Would Hon. Members prefer that I delay it?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Please.


Madam Speaker:: Then I will.

June 3, 1983
Petitions



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Madam Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E(2), Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to lay upon the Table a certified copy of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of British Columbia.
[ Translation]



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Madam Speaker:: 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 C-156, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 3), without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
Madam,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Brian Dickson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber to-day, the 3rd day of June, 1983, at 12:30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be,
Madam,
Your obedient servant,
Esmond Butler
Secretary to the Governor General



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and
pleasure to present this petition on behalf of 546 students of Sir Frederick Banting Secondary School in London, Ontario.
These students are opposed to the testing of the Cruise Missile in Canada. They encourage the Canadian Government to exert whatever means and influence is necessary to effect multilateral nuclear disarmament.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present a petition of the undersigned constituents of Kaslo in the riding of Kootenay West, my own constituency in the Province of British Columbia, and other concerned citizens.
The petition humbly sheweth that the Canadian RadioTelevision and Telecommunications Commission television broadcasting regulations do not extend to women the same protection against abusive comments or abusive pictorial representation as now exists for racial and religious groups; further, that the concerns of citizens have been recently heightened, not only by the so-called adult programming on pay television, but also by the proliferation of pornography in various media.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to demonstrate its opposition to the denigration of women by enacting an Act to Amend the Broadcasting Act as introduced by Lynn McDonald, Member for Broadview-Greenwood, on March 8, 1983. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I also have the honour of presenting two petitions, one from the Province of British Columbia, and a second from the Province of Quebec, in which the petitioners request that the House and the Government consider the implementation of an effective marine industrial strategy for Canada in order to ensure its economic expansion and employment. The petitioners would request that the Government begin immediate action.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,820 and 4,870.
June 3, 1983


Mr. Nickerson: 1.	Was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development advised by way of a letter dated April 12, 1983 that, because of financial constraints, the Eskimo Dog Foundation was unable to continue its work of preservation and breeding the Canadian Eskimo dog which has attracted so much international interest over the past few years and that the Foundation plans to donate its stock of some 60 registered dogs to the government on May 31, 1983?
2.	What plans does the Government have for the dogs it will receive and will it continue the work initiated by the Foundation of preservation of this unique and endangered breed?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes.
2.	The Eskimo Dog Research Foundation was privately sponsored and organized. Its objectives were to re-establish the Eskimo dog as a breed and to have it accepted for registration by the Canadian Kennel Club. A secondary objective was to return breeding stock to Inuit outpost camps. The Foundation has been successful in achieving these objectives. Although the Department funded a film produced by Inuk Films of Yellowknife to publicize the work of the Foundation, and to assist it in raising funds, it has not been successful in this nor in selling dogs in the South and there is no commercial market for them in the North.
While the Department has neither the funds nor the mandate to underwrite the Foundation's operations, the Government of the Northwest Territories has indicated that they are prepared to assist the Foundation to distribute the dogs to individual Inuit hunters who can be expected to make good use of them.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Is a conference on closed-captioning planned for Ottawa in 1983 and, if so, what will be the participation, if any, of the Government?
2.	What is the status of the Telidon closed-captioning decoder?
3.	On what date will the decoder be available for sale and what will be its cost?
4.	Is the decoder available as the Government had anticipated and, if not, for what reason?


Francis Fox: In so far
as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows:
1. On May 10, 1983 Communications Minister Francis Fox announced that the federal Government will contribute $30,000 in funding to the Canadian Captioning Development Agency (CCDA) to help sponsor the first World Conference on Closed Captioning.
The CCDA will host the conference as a special World Communications Year project in Ottawa this November. Existing captioning agencies in the United States, Australia, Britain, France and Sweden and other potential captioners will be invited to attend the conference. A special effort will be
Supply
made to involve organizations in developing countries that are interested in captioning.
2.	The Telidon closed-captioning decoder (with dual mode (videotex/teletext) capability) is currently operational and available.
3.	Due to the need to incorporate the final North American Presentation Level Protocol Syntax (NAPLPS) standard changes, the cost of the decoder is $3,950. It is expected that when the item becomes a consumer item there will be significant price reductions. Recent sales have largely been to people and institutions at the forefront of investigation and experimentation of its use.
Later this year significant price reductions are expected with a further significant drop in prices in the summer of 1984.
4.	As noted above, the decoder is available as had been expected.


David P. Smith: I would ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
BUSINESS OF SUPPLY ALLOTTED DAY, S O. 62-TRANSPORT POLICY Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants) moved:
That this House rejects the Government's policies with respect to transportation, which have caused concern, chaos and confusion, as demonstrated by its loss of control over Crown corporations such as Air Canada, CN and Canadair and that the political preference, secrecy and negligence that it has shown in its dealings with such private concerns as Maislin, and condemns the Government for its failure to demonstrate fairness, accountability and leadership in its activity.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am glad to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has returned to the House. As he well knows, this is an Opposition day on which we are expressing very justified concern, as far as the Opposition is concerned, about transportation policies and the fact that no matter how well intentioned this very pleasant and plausible Minister is, he is trying to adopt certain policies, in too much haste, perhaps biting off more than the legislative system can digest, let alone the public accept. Through this indigestion in the legislative process and the public's concern, there is confusion, chaos and concern of the public with regard to the transportation industry across this country.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
I am leading off for my Party in this debate. My colleagues will be detailing aspects of this concern, primarily involving the loss of control which the Government should be exercising over its agencies, particularly its Crown corporations. We will be discussing its loss of control over Crown transport companies. It insults every Canadian when it appoints its political friends, such as Bryce Mackasey and Jack Horner, to top jobs. Then it heaps some more insults upon Canadians when it refuses to say what these men are paid, and fudges around in effect in regard to how much they work during the week for which they are paid.
Then there is the trucking industry. The Government's discriminatory support for a mismanaged company has dislocated the whole industry in central Canada. One of my colleagues will be elaborating on this issue which is of concern in transport across the country. It looks as though the people of Canada will lose $34 million when the company goes down the drain.
There are other signs of the Government's rot and lack of direction concerning transport matters. Canadian National is under investigation for illegal trade practices, and Parliament's supervision of the company must be suspended while Cabinet dithers about preventing CN from taking over a debt-ridden shipping group. Another colleague will be discussing that in more detail.
Then, of course, there is Canadair. It is, speaking most conservatively, in deep financial trouble. The trouble at the root is lack of control of the Government over one of its primary Crown corporations.
Then, of course, we have Air Canada, Mr. Speaker, and particularly the Chairman of the Board, a part-time chairman, whatever that means, and no one in this Government seems to know what it means. He is apparently under some type of RCMP investigation. Also, a consultant at Air Canada makes a secret multimillion dollar kickback deal, which I will refer to later.
These are just some of the matters, Mr. Speaker, which cause the confusion, the chaos and the legitimate concern of Canadians from coast to coast. We can consider too the very human element in the Government itself, and the Minister who is primarily responsible for the use of Government planes, and the rules as to the use or abuse of those Government planes. It appears that when it is brought to public notice through the press or in this House that Government planes are used to fly Ministers across the country-which we understand, but which is in effect mixing business with pleasure-there is a convenient bending of the rules. I would like to ask the Minister how he can justify bending the rules for Ministers when they file their expense accounts, and not distinguishing between expense accounts for personal pleasure involving family and expense accounts involving Government business. Canadians have just completed the most complicated income tax return ever designed to confound man. That Canadian, be it a working person or a business person must distinguish between the
June 3, 1983
business and the pleasure aspects in asking for some redress of expenses. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is part of the dry rot and alienation of the public from the politician, when there is a special rule which governs us and Ministers and it is not the same rule which governs taxpayers. That is something that, while it may seem small in terms of the dollars involved, in terms of principle is not at all small. It has to be addressed and redressed. There have to be firm guidelines set down as to the use of Government planes for business or pleasure.
1 say this kindly to the Minister, because I believe he is trying to do a good job, that, frankly, I feel he is trying to do too much in too short an interval. That I believe is best shown when we look at the changes to the Crow after 80 years or 90 years in a Bill which was supposed to be, perhaps not rubber-stamped but forced through this House by way of closure after a couple of days' debate.
Then in the East we have the Maritime Freight Rates Act under which the Government unilaterally, without consultation with the four Atlantic Governments, in effect contracted for a consultant group to review the impact and the continued efficacy of the Maritime freight rates, how they help or hurt the Atlantic industry. That again was done without consultation. There has been some clarification of that and, hopefully, when the report comes in from the consultant group there will be some chance for public input. However, Mr. Speaker, that is the point I make about concern, chaos and confusion. When you have those two fundamental Bills, the large one of the Crow in the West which affects all of Canada, and the Maritime Freight Rates Act in the East, and unilaterally the Government tries to force change through the House without proper debate or proper public input, obviously, you are going to get a negative reaction. I could speak at length on the effect of the changes to the Crow in the West and the Maritime freight rates in the East. One could almost say those Bills are like the wings of the economy. Those Acts are there for a purpose, to help build the economy in those respective areas. Those two Acts were the wings which gave the lift-off to the economy, to help the economy grow, to help the regions grow. Then, for whatever reason, we are told it is time to change. We all know there is change necessary in both areas. I agree with the Minister that change is needed. However, change should not be forced through the House with the club of closure.
There are many other areas I could mention, Mr. Speaker, for instance, what is in the paper today about Quebecair and where it sits. Evidently, Quebec has turned down the latest proposal from negotiations between Air Canada-the Government of Canada-and Quebecair. There may be legitimate reasons why it has been turned down. However, this is another area which affects a very vital part of the country. It is a very vital airline of the country and it is literally up in the air because the negotiations have not produced any results.
I do not have to mention Nordair and the flip-flops in Government policy on Nordair when it was taken over and when it was to be sold off. There is a total absence of any public statement from this Minister on the total area of
June 3, 1983
[Stage Direction]
domestic air policy, which again creates chaos and confusion, and it certainly creates concern among all those affected. In fact, Mr. Speaker, one could say in a most poetic way that this litany of concern, chaos and confusion becomes a lament for a responsible leadership and for accountability of the Crown and its agencies to this Parliament, which is the representative of the people.
Others of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, will be developing some of these themes, involving Canadair, Maislin, CN and CP. I would like to turn to the specifics of Air Canada about which, as many Hon. Members know, I have asked questions. It is called an Air Canada matter, but perhaps it should be called "the Chairman of Air Canada affair". We have a situation of indefinite allegations against unknown people for an unknown length of time. It may be called "the affair about people who are trying to set up the Chairman of Air Canada". However, all of this has little relevance to what I want to say about the Air Canada matter.
In my opinion, there are two fundamental issues at stake here which we have bandied about in the House through pleasant words with the Minister and even more pleasant diversions from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). One is the matter of the fair administration of justice and the due process of law. There is not an Hon. Member who does not appreciate the significance of that. The second matter, which definitely comes within the prerogative of this House and of the Transport Committee, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, is the conduct of the office of the chairman of a Crown Corporation, and specifically with regard to Air Canada, the problem of a parttime chairman wheeling and dealing for his own personal gain. This matter first arose in the House, Mr. Speaker, on December 9, 1982. On December 20, after reports in the press, the Minister of Transport, in replying to a question in the House, said that he telephoned the Chairman of the Board of Air Canada to tell him about an RCMP inquiry. The Minister said that he had RCMP approval to make the call. He further said that he had someone telephone the President of Air Canada. Not surprisingly, a further question was asked immediately, and it was, "What had the Minister told the Chairman of Air Canada?" At this point, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mac-Guigan) intervened and answered that he had talked with the Minister of Transport and that he, the Minister of Justice, had taken appropriate steps, and that he, the Minister of Justice, did not think it appropriate to give further details.
For many reasons, Mr. Speaker, this answer is not satisfactory. The history of Parliament has long been a struggle to ensure that the executive is responsible to Parliament and, therefore, ultimately, accountable to the people. The simple belief of a Minister that his course of action is appropriate has rarely been accepted by the courts as adequate justification. The courts have inquired usually to see whether there were in fact reasonable grounds for the conclusion to which the Minister of the Crown arrived. In the court of Parliament, of course, the elected Government carries the day. If it does not wish to require the Minister to give reasons for his belief and to justify it publicly, then of course the Minister does not have to do so. However, this does not mean that the fundamental principle of responsibility on this issue has been discharged.
Supply
The people of Canada, to whom we are all responsible, sooner or later will merely say that on this issue the Government does not want the reasons for its decision made public. Perhaps we could say, charitably, that the Government will reveal some day why the Minister of Justice thought it appropriate not to explain what the Minister of Transport said to the Chairman of Air Canada. Very probably, the Minister of Transport acted perfectly properly. Very probably he told the Chairman of Air Canada nothing which would compromise an RCMP investigation. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, perhaps without even realizing it, the Minister of Transport said something to the Chairman of Air Canada, or something was said in the phone call to the President of Air Canada, that compromises the investigation.
This leads to a more fundamental point. Should a Minister of the Crown ever knowingly communicate with a person who, there is good reason to believe, may be under criminal investigation? On May 26 the Minister of Transport appeared before the committee and he was much more forthcoming about the telephone call. He said that he had made the call to the Chairman and he asked the RCMP for approval. He also said he was alone when he made the call and that there was no recording and it lasted approximately five, six or seven minutes. He said that he possibly told the Chairman that other people, presumably besides the Chairman, were involved in the police inquiry. I suggest that this is a most serious matter, Madam Speaker even if it was inadvertence on the part of the Minister. I am not suggesting in the least that the Minister acted intentionally wrongly when he phoned the Chairman of Air Canada. But I think this House should seriously consider guidelines which would ensure that the possibility of the criminal justice system being compromised or short-circuited cannot occur with phone calls to people who may be under criminal investigation.
We do not know, of course, whether the Chairman of Air Canada was himself being investigated. We can certainly draw some inferences in view of things that have happened since, but here we have a Minister privy to details about the investigation talking to a man who may be under investigation. Even if the Chairman is not under investigation, might it not be that a friend of his is? We have the Minister admitting that he told the Chairman that other people were being investigated. The possibility that a criminal investigation may be short-circuited or appear to be short-circuited and the suspects warned is very serious, particularly so in a case like this where the Chairman is a political appointee.
The Montreal Gazette has reported that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) attended a party given in honour of the Chairman's appointment. It would be a political embarrassment for the Government if such a person were to be convicted of a criminal offence, or even charged. I ask, should there not then be clear guidelines about the way in which Ministers and other
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1983
Supply
political appointees can communicate with a person in this situation so that justice will not only be done but will appear to be done?
The Minister of Transport has said that the RCMP-and by this he seems to mean one or both of the officers with whom he discussed the case-said that he could telephone Mr. Amyot. But should decisions about the due administration of justice really be left to be decided by RCMP officers in these circumstances? The answer must clearly be no. This House needs to establish clear guidelines on how political figures privy to confidential information about police investigations may contact persons who may be under investigation. I suggest, Madam Speaker, at the very least, an impartial witness should be required to be present and a recording of some type made of the call. But I am not convinced that any oral contact should be made at all. As I said, there may be, by chance or inadvertence, a compromise of due process. This is a serious issue of the possibility of political interference with the fair administration of justice, and I think we definitely have to set some guidelines. I would think that in time this issue should be clarified and defined before either the Standing Committee on Transport or a larger committee of this House.
Turning to the matter of conduct in office, regardless of what the criminal investigation is about, there is the issue of the Government's responsibility to ensure that the Board of Directors of Air Canada can operate properly, I have repeatedly asked the Government to consider giving the Chairman a leave of absence or suspending him pending the outcome of the investigation. I want to emphasize again that I do not make the suggestion because I believe or have any knowledge at all that the Chairman is guilty of any criminal offence. I do not know. I suggest perhaps that no one in this House knows what the Chairman has done or not done that may involve criminal responsibility.
Jean-Luc Pepin: Why are you charging him, then?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It is a fundamental aspect of our system of justice that a man is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty. However, there is the question of whether the Chairman of Crown corporation with a public board can continue to operate properly and indefinitely when he, rightly or wrongly, is at the centre, apparently, of a criminal investigation. I have had reports that the Board of Directors of Air Canada finds this to be an intolerable situation. In questions in the House, Madam Speaker, I have used the analogy of what happens when a policeman is under investigation. It is routine that the policeman is suspended pending the outcome of the investigation. There is some similarity with this situation because both have elements of public trust and it has to be clear that the public trust is not abused. There is no presumption that the policeman had acted improperly, but when the investigation is completed and the policeman is cleared, then he is reinstated. The suspension is not made or a leave of absence given because there is a presumption of guilt. The policeman is suspended because he occupies a position of public trust and responsibility-


Walter David Baker: But their pay continues.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Their pay continues, as my friend, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), says. It is imperative that the public perceive that there is no possibility that the public trust is being abused. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that the Chairman of Air Canada is in a position of high trust and responsibility in one of the leading Crown corporations in the public domain.
This Government may say that to remove the Chairman now would be to imply guilt. If that is in fact true, the situation has arisen only because this Government failed to give the Chairman leave of absence when it should have done so. When the Minister had this confidential information about a pending criminal investigation before anyone else even heard about it, that was the time for ministerial responsibility to be exercised so that Air Canada did not become contaminated through the criminal investigation. It was then the time to do so, at the very beginning of the investigation, before it ever got on the floor of the House and into the newspapers of the land. Sadly, Madam Speaker, I suggest that in effect the Minister is now reaping the penalty for his failure to discharge the responsibility that was clearly his. If it was not clearly his duty, it was clearly the duty of the Prime Minister who has the ultimate responsibility for Government policy. In this case I think he is very directly involved in the appointment of his friend, the Chairman of Air Canada.
There is another way, Madam Speaker, of looking at the matter of the Chairman continuing in his position pending the outcome of the investigation. Essentially he is appointed by the Government acting on behalf of all the people of Canada. The people of Canada own this airline, even more so than PetroCan where we have had advertisements saying: "It is ours". Well, Air Canada is ours. It belongs to the people of Canada. The Chairman is ultimately accountable to the whole country. Each Canadian is a shareholder, so the Chairman has a duty to explain his actions. If he does not do so, it is not that we say he is guilty of a crime; we just say he should not continue in the absence of explanations as Chairman of a Crown corporation.
There are many questions I could pose today, if I had the time, not about criminality but about conduct in office. The questions are very vital. I do not think it has ever occurred in the history of Crown corporations that one could even pose these questions, none of which have been denied.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We have an inquiry, for heaven's sake.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What has the Chairman of Air Canada failed to explain? There is the matter of his alleged request to TAP, the Portugese airline, for three free tickets to Portugal for his friends. The Montreal Gazette reported on April 27 that an internal TAP memo said that Mr. Amyot said he would be "very instrumental" in getting landing rights for TAP in Toronto. Now, TAP has very carefully denied that Mr. Amyot was actually involved in its efforts to get landing rights in
June 3, 1983

Toronto, but they have never denied they were approached by Mr. Amyot.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to say that the Hon. Member's time has expired and I have to interrupt him.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, this corner of the House would be only too happy to agree to the Hon. Member being allowed to continue his remarks.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the Hon. Member be allowed to continue with his remarks?


Mr. Flis:: They are despicable remarks but we agree to allow the Hon. Member to continue.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I will not trespass on the patience of the House by referring to my hon. friend's diversion. The public will in time find whether these are despicable remarks. Questions have been asked in the House and they are properly in the public domain.
I thank the House for giving me the time to continue. I have a text, so I will not be as long as I usually am when I sometimes ramble without a text. I appreciate the courtesy of the House as I lead off this debate for my Party.
I have referred to this TAP memo before and it has not been denied. I think we ought to have a clear explanation from Mr. Amyot. If he cannot or will not give an explanation, then he should be removed from his position as Chairman. Again, I am not talking about any criminal offence. If we cannot get answers from the Chairman of the Board, he should no longer stay as Chairman pending completion of this matter. In the case of the alleged request to TAP Airlines, it is particularly important to receive answers from Mr. Amyot because, as has been reported in the Gazette, if TAP Airlines obtain landing rights in Toronto, then Air Canada's business between Montreal and Toronto will suffer. Therefore, there is a possibility that the Chairman was in fact acting against the interests of Air Canada. Surely that is a legitimate question in the public domain.
Again, the Chairman of Air Canada has also failed to explain what connection, if any, he has had with Mr. Bertrand Dufour, the man who was trying to arrange a loan of $500 million or $1 billion to Air Canada. The Gazette has reported that Mr. Dufour is an associate of Mr. Amyot and is now in Europe looking for funds to invest in a resort project in Portugal in which the Gazette states Mr. Amyot is involved. Did the Chairman of Air Canada have personal dealings with Mr. Dufour at the time the loan negotiations were taking place? Again, there is the possibility of a conflict of interest, and Mr. Amyot should discount it or be replaced in Air Canada. He has the capacity to make any public statement he wants.
There is also a matter which Mr. Amyot should explain. I should point out that, like all the other matters which I mentioned so far, it is an issue which has been raised in the press and not first by me in the House. Therefore, it is not as though
Supply
1,	alone, have been asking these questions. The matter concerns a meeting which took place in Paris. The Montreal Gazette of May 14, reports that Mr. Amyot attended a meeting in Paris in March of 1982 with a French financier at which "they discussed possible financing for a development project for Air Canada's head office called Place Mont Royal". Again, there is a possibility that the Chairman was acting in conflict with the interest of Air Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Protecting yourself all the time, aren't you?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Again, the Chairman should be called upon to explain. Let me point out again that the Chairman certainly has the prerogative of not explaining. However, if he does not explain, how can he continue to be the Chairman of the airlines if there could be possible conflicts of interest?
There are other matters which I think the Chairman should explain. For instance, why did he meet with Joseph Zappia, a fugitive from Canadian justice, in Rome?
He should also explain whether he has any interest in the company called Fidusco International Limited, a company which was incorporated in Nassau, the Bahamas, on December
2,	1981, a company which has been linked with a kickback deal, as reported by the Montreal Gazette in a large story on Thursday, May 28, I believe. I will not take the time of the House to read the particulars of the story, because it was not raised by me and there are no questions in the House. However, the story, which has not been denied, sets out the details of a contract and a kickback between one person and A.E. LePage. I should make it absolutely clear again that there is no evidence before the House that Mr. Amyot had an interest in Fidusco International. However, as Mr. Amyot does own a sizeable part of a Quebec incorporated company called Fidusco Limitee, he should perhaps be called upon to explain that it is merely a coincidence that a similarly named company incorporated by a friend had an interest in the Air Canada site selection.
There are many other matters that I can mention. I do not want to trespass on the patience of the House. I have a whole series of questions concerning which I have asked Air Canada itself to reply. They could definitely go accountability, separate and apart from any questions I have asked about Mr. Amyot. Other Hon. Members will be speaking of accountability and the lack of control of Crown corporations. I do not want to trespass too far. However, there are questions which Air Canada has a necessity to answer in terms of the public interest. There must be some further evidence from Air Canada at some time before the Transport Committee stating the proposals that it was considering for Air Canada headquarters. I have a list of the questions which I had sent to the Chairman of the Transport Committee, comprising two pages, which Air Canada should answer. Therefore, I am not only trying to focus attention only on the Chairman of Air Canada, but also, obviously, on Air Canada's responsibility.

June 3, 1983
Supply
I will not trespass any further, but let me say only that, regardless of the pejorative comments of my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis), about my questions, the fact of the matter is that we know we have privilege in the House so that matters in the public domain can be discussed without fear or apprehension of having to run into men-of-straw lawsuits.
Certainly, when there is a political appointment to one of the top Crown corporations of the land, and when there are questions about the cross-over of personal dealings with his part-time activity as Chairman, in effect, involving Air Canada property, tickets, let alone stationery, then I think these are public questions which must be asked, separate and apart from any criminal investigation.
I will conclude as I began, by saying that I have a great deal of respect for the Minister of Transport and for many of his officials. However, I really do believe that, for whatever reasons, he is biting off more than he can chew. We know that he was under tremendous pressure involving the Crow when he did a flip-flop, which he certainly thought would help but which actually aggravated the situation. He is trying to bite off more than he can digest. The legislative process, let alone the people of Canada, cannot accept it all in a short duration of time to really make up for a great deal of inactivity over a long period of time. After all, the present Government has been the Government in power for the majority of time, sad as that may be for the Canadian public.
Therefore, I hope that the debate will focus on other areas where there is chaos, confusion and concern so that the Minister will appreciate that from coast to coast, in many areas, there must be a tenderness, a moving ahead and respect for the concern of people so that there are not closures on Crow and there is not silence on questions about chairmen of Crown corporations. Others will speak of other Crown corporations. These are questions which must be answered. The longer they are left unanswered, the longer suspicions will be created. The smoke is there. We all know that when one tries to smother a flame, it bursts out in other places, and it is not a very healthy situation.
I think that at least the Minister or someone in the House on the Government side must make a statement very soon to clear the cloud which is around Air Canada, rather than the cloud around individuals which is infecting and affecting Air Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I would like to ask a question. Speaking of clearing a cloud, would my hon. friend leave us with a message before he finishes his remarks? Will he tell us if his Party is generally favourable to more control by the executive of Crown corporations or more control by Parliament on Crown corporations?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, by Parliament.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Would he tell us whether his Party is in favour of more autonomy for Crown corporations? Would he also tell us whether his Party is in favour of more privatization for Crown corporations, or is it in favour of all four?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The answer to that could be another whole speech, which I will hopefully make some day.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, your general view.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My very brief answer is that we can philosophize about Crown corporations and, certainly, there are many areas where my Party believes in privatization. However, the big thing which is fundamental to the process is accountability. That is the big thing. That is the reason we are all here. The Minister knows, as a former professor, how we originated in terms of the battle of the purse and how this Chamber is the Green Chamber, the medal behind the shadows of the castle. Therefore, it could compromise the King's purse and did not have to send women, soldiers, cattle and horses off to the wars. The people resented it and fought the battle of the purse. We know it is difficult, with the complexities of Government, the complexities of Crown corporations and the amount of control involved, but that does not lessen the desire and the need to try even harder to exercise some control.
I do say very specifically that when Crown corporations are treated as political, personal fiefdoms, it does not help accountability.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Honour the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Honour was pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-160, an Act to amend the Salaries Act-Chapter 149.
Bill C-156, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 3)-Chapter 150.
Bill S-35, an Act to incorporate the Eparch of the Eparchy of Saints Cyril and Methodius of Slovaks of the Byzantine Rite in Canada.
June 3, 1983



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nowlan:
That this House rejects the Government's policies with respect to transportation, which have caused concern, chaos and confusion, as demonstrated by its loss of control over Crown corporations such as Air Canada, C.N., and Canadair and the political preference, secrecy and negligence that it has shown in its dealings with such private concerns as Maislin, and condemns the Government for its failure to demonstrate fairness, accountability and leadership in its activities.
He said: Madam Speaker, there are many other matters which could be mentioned but I know that my friends in the NDP have points to make. In view of the time, I wonder if we could not facilitate the orderly business of the House if I were to call it one o'clock so that any other speaker would not be interrupted just as he began. I have basically finished my contribution to the debate involving the very specific problems of Air Canada. What would the mood of the House be, after giving me an extension of time, to perhaps calling it one o'clock now so that the NDP spokesman could have a fresh start?
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to agree to that. I just wonder if the previous speaker might entertain a short question, and then we could call it one o'clock.
The motion is very timely. I think it is important to place this issue on the record. We support the concept that the transportation system in this country is in chaos. I noticed that the Hon. Member did not include, as one of the serious effects of that chaos, the chaos that has been caused in native communities because of inadequate transportation. Many native communities are well outside of the mainstream of transportation. I am concerned that we are talking about issues which do not primarily deal with people's problems. Of late, the Conservative Party has concentrated on that.
As an example of these problems I would point to a band at Bella Bella of a thousand people whose needs include hospitals, RCMP and a desperate need for transportation. The cost of living is astronomical. It can all be brought down to the transportation system. That community needs a wharf, a rollon, roll-off ferry system and an airport. They are being denied that by the federal Government. I would say it is an example of dozens of communities and tens of thousands of natives in that same situation. They cannot operate that community effectively.
One other interesting point is that the Government has failed to deliver on its responsibilities to the native people on the transportation system. Ultimately other Government funds that are being spent are squandered. The transportation system is vital. I know the subject of the native people was probably inadvertently left out as a priority, but I would really
Supply
like to hear the Hon. Member's comments on the transportation system and what the federal Government should be doing to bring native communities into the mainstream of the economy of Canada by boosting transportation.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) has mentioned a very valid point. He himself agrees it is in a very important area that is not specifically covered in this general resolution on transportation. Quite frankly, it was deliberately drafted in terms that are general enough so that different Members could perhaps focus on different areas of concern. In this motion we are primarily focusing on the concern of transportation in general and its relation with the Crown Corporations that are also related to transportation, and the problem of accountability and ministerial responsibility. We could have used many words in drafting the general terms of the motion. They were really the words of a former Minister of Transport in the present Government, namely, the Hon. Len Marchand when he was Minister of Transport, who said that Transportation was in a mess.
Unfortunately, even though the Government is still holding the reins of power, I would think, as I have tried to illustrate today, that there are still areas of mess causing chaos, confusion and concern. One of them is very definitely the matter which my hon. friend from Comox-Powell River mentioned, as well as the matter referred to by an Hon. Member from the Official Opposition, the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), who wanted to get involved in something in his area concerning ferries and the Grand Manan problems.
There are many different problems affecting transportation. I really do believe, without discounting the concern of the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River, that the question he raised is one that will certainly be canvassed more on an Opposition day devoted to the subject of Indian Affairs or before the committee responsible. The Hon. Member is quite right that I did not get into all the particular problems affecting different regions and different groups within regions.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is an area of concern of mine and it is not regional. I used one example, but that example stands for hundreds of communities across Canada. In this House Members ignore native people. There is a tendency to focus on what is in the headlines and where it is at today. But the frustration that I and other Members have experienced in the House with this Government is that the topic is not debated enough. We do not make it a part of our priority system. The other day we had a debate on forestry. It was an excellent debate. But the Conservative Party did not mention native people. I think many Members afterwards began to mention the native people. They realize it is important to mention them and remind the Government of its total failure with regard to a large group of people in this country who span the entire country. With that in mind I think the motion would be supported generally.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, if that is the last question, although I am ready to take other questions, to facilitate the

June 3, 1983
Supply
orderliness of debate I think it would be appropriate to call it one o'clock, if the House so approves.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I now call it one o'clock, and I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 12.56 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is my duty pursuant to Section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to lay upon the table a certified copy of the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Northwest Territories.


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nowlan:
That this House rejects the Government's policies with respect to transportation, which have caused concern, chaos and confusion, as demonstrated by its loss of control over Crown corporations such as Air Canada, CN and Canadair and that the political preference, secrecy and negligence that it has shown in its dealings with such private concerns as Maislin, and condemns the Government for its failure to demonstrate fairness, accountability and leadership in its activity.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I understand that when the House rose for lunch the floor was clear. Therefore I will recognize the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) at this point.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) still has the floor. If he wants to rush in at the last second, he could still have it, as far as I am concerned.
At the outset I want to say that we support the motion of the Hon. Member for perhaps somewhat different reasons. There is no question that the entire matter of accountability of Crown corporations has always been and will continue to be of prime importance and deserving the attention of Parliament, legislatures or municipal Governments.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Get rid of them all.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Those who say, "Get rid of them all" are the Neanderthals of the eighteenth century. Perhaps I should explain why Crown corporations were set up in the first place. It was because they were in areas in which the private sector
could not or would not take part or, if it took part, required public subsidy.
I want to move an amendment to the Opposition motion because I think the accountability principle must be extended also to the shareholders and customers of private corporations in transportation as well as the public ones. I will not take a back seat to anyone, being in support of having a publicly owned national airline, a publicly owned national railway and several other publicly owned transportation utilities. I am not under any illusion that they will be perfect. Any organization run by people will be imperfect.
I will not hesitate to criticize any details of their operations or how they conduct their affairs if I feel it is necessary. We are fortunate that Air Canada is a Crown corporation. It is something which all nations have, all except one country to the south of the 49th parallel. All nations have a national airline for a variety of reasons, not just ideological ones. We agree that there are problems with the expensive golden handshake for management people compared with employees when they are being laid off or are trying to obtain early retirements and voluntary separations.
I question whether or not this is the time to get into a $30 million new head office. I question the misuse of the resources of Air Canada, whether it is by a member of its executive or anyone else. It is not surprising that, because of government policy, within the commercial marketplace in which Air Canada and CN operate, they cannot and do not operate any differently from private corporations which are in the same marketplace. Canadian National has been jacking up rates on containers shipped by rail out of Halifax while at the same time investing in competing shipping lines. I find that strange. Canadian National has abandoned branch lines in dozens of communities. One would expect that of Canadian Pacific, but one has to question that action when it is taken by a publicly owned corporation.
If the accountability of corporations in the private sector is improved, I submit there would then be less commercial pressure on Crown corporations to behave in the same way as do private corporations. In other words, there would be less pressure on Crown corporations to behave irresponsibly. Most corporations in the private sector which are involved in transportation are substantially financed and subsidized by taxpayers. They always have been. If the private enterprise system is so great in the transportation sector-and one could mention other sectors but we are dealing with the transportation sector-why has the private sector been incapable of doing the job by itself? It has always had to have public subsidy and public financing, and therefore it seems to me that the private transportation sector loses the right to claim that its work is private property and that it is confidential, that it is not as accountable as a public corporation is in the same endeavour and that it can do whatever it pleases. That has been the history of the Canadian Pacific Limited since 1881.
June 3, 1983

It seems strange to me that a private railway company can sit at the public trough and get subsidies and financing and not be accountable. How much do the shareholders of Canadian Pacific Limited really find out at their annual meetings from its officers about the company's internal operations and the use of the company's resources. Mr. Speaker, if you were to buy one share in Canadian Pacific Limited or CP Enterprises Limited and were to go to the annual meeting, you would see how far you would get when you asked what was happening to your investment. You would get voted out of order so fast that it would make your head spin.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that not only Canadian National, Air Canada and other Crown corproations must be accountable to a public body such as an appropriate standing committee of the House of Commons, but, in the field of transportation, so should the private corporations be accountable. Because most of these corporations exist only because of public financing and public subsidy, they are answerable to the public and the public is entitled not only to answers but, if possible, to some kind of social and economic return on their investment.
Let us take Canadian railways as an example. Taxpayers paid 60 per cent of the total original cost to build the CPR. Do taxpayers have any share in it? Do taxpayers have any say in it? Since 1881, Ministers of Transport under the law should, in theory, have been able to control the railways. We all know that they could not and they did not. Eighty one per cent of the investment for Canadian Northern, a private enterprise operation, was put up by the taxpayers, and 65 per cent of the investment for the Grand Trunk Pacific was put up by the taxpayers. When those companies went belly-up and Canadian National was formed, the taxpayers paid a second time. All of the bond holders got their money back. The banks and the financiers got their money back. We have been paying them off. We have been paying them back their original investment with interest. Over $2 billion worth of those debts have been transferred to the books of the Government of Canada. Canadian National is no longer victimized by operating losses because of the interest charges on those old debts. Who has ever asked those private sector railway companies to account for their practices and to account for what was done with public funds that were obtained?
We believe, Mr. Speaker, that every Crown corporation and every private corporation that is involved in a joint enterprise with the federal Government and with taxpayers or who receive, request and accept public funds by way of either capital investment or operating subsidies should be equally accountable before an appropriate committee of the House of Commons. May I say something about those committees, Mr. Speaker? The appropriate committees do not have sufficient authority to require Air Canada, Canadian National or any private company to be really forthright in opening up their books and providing complete access to them for Members of Parliament.
I suspect that there are things that even the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and the Canadian Transport Commission do not know and cannot find out about Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, Air Canada, CP Air, and a whole host of other companies. 1 would not want to see the ability to find out
Supply
about these things reside only in the hands of the Minister of Transport of the day. That ability should also reside in the hands of Parliament, the Ministry and the appropriate committee of the House of Commons. That should apply to all Crown corporations and to all private sector corporations that accept, receive or enjoy an enterprise thanks to the taxpayers of Canada.
Surely the taxpayers of Canada are entitled to a return on any investment they make. Like motherhood, everybody agrees with the Minister's proposal on the upgrading of railway lines. The only difference of opinion is about how that is to be done.
I do not understand how my friends in the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party who support free enterprise and private enterprise could object to my proposal. I have yet to hear one of them object to my proposal, and I have been proposing it for the last 15 years. I do not see how they could object to taking equity ownership. I do not see how they could object to being eligible for or having the opportunity to get a return on the taxpayers' investment by way of interest or dividends. I do not see how they could object to taxpayers being eligible for representation on a board of directors and to have those representatives protect the investment of the taxpayers and look into the well-being of that investment. When I propose a good, sound principle, a good fundamental private enterprise exercise on behalf of taxpayers, my friends are silent.
If the investment of a private investor was treated the same as the investment of the taxpayers has been by the railroads, both public and private, we would hear a hue and cry from the Members of the Liberal and Tory Parties such as we have never heard before. But if it is the taxpayers' investment that is at stake, they are silent or they do not believe it or they will not agree that the taxpayers, through the Government, are entitled to a return on that investment just like any private investor. They are entitled to equity ownership.
The Minister of Transport wants to put up hundreds of millions of dollars in capital to upgrade railways, and we agree with that but it will continue what has been going on for 100 years-just give them the money and away they go. Is there any prospect of a return on that investment? There is a slight prospect of the return of any money that CN gets. I think they paid a $5 million dividend last year to the Government for the taxpayers of Canada. That is not very much when you consider the total investment, but it is a beginning. Why should the same not apply to Canadian Pacific? If they are going to get $200 million or $300 million each year for the next nine years, should the taxpayers not be entitled to a return on that capital investment?
I am not talking about subsidies for proven out-of-pocket losses incurred in hauling grain or any other commodity, Mr. Speaker. That is a subsidy. No Crown corporation or private corporation should be allowed to make a profit on the subsidy itself. When funds are put forward for investment in the

June 3, 1983
Supply
capital infrastructure of corporations, public or private, surely it is given to get a return, using the good private enterprise theories about investment and profitability of my hon. friends in the Liberal and Tory Parties. I presumed that the Minister and his colleagues and my friends in the Conservative Party would leap to their feet in support of our alternative proposal to spend exactly the same amount of money as the Minister proposes under Bill C-155 and allow taxpayers the opportunity of a return on the investment by taking equity shares, both increasing our equity ownership in Canadian National and taking the common voting equity shares in Canadian Pacific. What is wrong with that? I thought I would be a hero among private enterprisers for suggesting that, but they are silent. I do not understand it. I make a proposal which is totally in accordance with the private enterprise and profitability principles of the Liberals and Tories and they will not support it. 1 do not understand that. Surely it makes good common business sense.
I sent the Minister a copy of our alternative proposal and he has read about it in the press but I have not received a reply from him. I cannot get a word out of the Tories about it. I do not understand this, Mr. Speaker. It looks as if the Liberals and the Tories want to keep their private enterprise friends feeding at the public trough with subsidies and capital investment which is a straight handout. They want to continue a practice that has been going on since 1881 and even before. Where is this accountability of the public investment, the taxpayers' investment that the motion speaks of?
I should like to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly):
That the motion be amended by inserting the following immediately after the word Canadair: and private corporations such as Eastern Provincial Airways, Canadian Pacific Limited, and Power Corporation of Canada.
My amendment does not abuse the thrust of the motion of the spokesman on transport for the Official Opposition. It seems to me to enlarge the whole principle of accountability for and what is done with public contributions to the private sector as well as to the public sector. It also allows for scrutiny of what is done with those funds as and when they are contributed by the taxpayers of Canada through the Government of the day.
Surely before this Parliament dies an unnatural death it could come up with a method of referring annual reports of all Crown corporations and any private corporation which receives public funds to the appropriate standing committee of Parliament. Those committees should have power to investigate, and that should be a power conjoint with the Minister. The Minister and the Canadian Transport Commission should have an enlarged ability to find out what is going on in the books and in the practices of Crown corporations and private corporations which come down here on bended knee to ask for taxpayers' money to help them make a profit for themselves- and to hell with the taxpayers. Surely that makes eminent good sense, Mr. Speaker. It certainly enhances what is a responsibility of Parliament and of the Minister to peruse and call to account all the Crown and private corporations that
receive grants, subsidies, tax rebates and tax deferrals. Canadian Pacific owes the people of Canada in excess of $ 1.2 billion in deferred corporation taxes, which we will never see.
I hope that this debate will cause the Government to meet with the other Parties of the House, and that when the standing committees meet in the fall they will be able to hear from the Crown corporations, question them and make them accountable.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I have some quarrel with the amendment, not necessarily its intent, although I might wish that my socialist friends would attack the private sector on their own time and in their own way. I do not have a copy of the amendment in front of me. That is the usual courtesy extended to other Members by that Party.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Sorry.


J. Michael Forrestall: I submit that, to the degree the Hon. Member adds, immediately following the word "Canadair", those other corporations which are very clearly in the private sector, thus joining them with the intent of our motion and that is, to deal with Crown corporations-to that degree I find some grounds for concern with respect to the admissibility of the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I want to advise the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) that I am concerned about the admissibility of the amendments. When I look at the motion that is before the House in the name of the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), which refers to a loss of control over Crown corporations such as Air Canada, CN, etc., the amendment proposes to apply the same words-a loss of control over private corporations such as Eastern Provincial Airways, Canadian Pacific Limited and Power Corporation of Canada. Obviously, within the terms of the language of both the amendment and the motion, the motion itself indicates a loss of control over public corporations. The amendment, by the nature of its placement within the motion, refers to a loss of control over private corporations. I believe that may give some problem. Obviously, the Chair is going to suggest that debate continue while consideration is being given to the amendment. However, 1 believe, if I may assist the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), a more appropriate place for his amendment would be after the word "Maislin" within the main motion, ". . . with such private concerns as Maislin,. .then "and private corporations . . ." follows. I am not sure that it is an essential matter and I wonder whether the Hon. Member for Regina West, after reflection, might consider accepting a suggestion to put his amendment in that particular position rather than the one he has proposed?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had thought of that first. I am perfectly willing to have it inserted there, as long as it is inserted for the record. I would appreciate it. You are quite correct, it says, " . . . such private concerns as Mais-
June 3, 1983

lin .. ", and, .. and private corporations such as ..as mentioned in my amendment fit in there perfectly, and that is the proper place for it to be.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I thank the Hon. Member for Regina West for his co-operation. In that case, the Chair has no difficulty. Accordingly, the motion as amended by the Hon. Member for Regina West, seconded by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) reads:
That following the words, "... with such private concerns as Maislin ..the motion is amended by inserting the following immediately after the word "Maislin":
... and private corporations such as Eastern Provincial Airways, Canadian Pacific Limited and Power Corporation of Canada.
Accordingly, the motion is found to be in order and debate will continue. Comments, answers?


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the previous speaker this simple question: would he please enlighten the House as to what political preference and secrecy the Government has shown in its dealings with the private railway? That is the motion he has just moved.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the political preference goes back to 1881, for Canadian Pacific Limited, the failure by the Government to enforce Canadian Labour Relations Board decisions in the case of Eastern Provincial Airways and, I submit, favouritism given to Voyageur Bus Lines owned by Power Corporation of Canada, headed by, I believe, Paul Martin, son of the Paul Martin.
The point is, Mr. Speaker, that all of these corporations directly and indirectly have received public taxpayers' funds, either by way of subsidy or by way of capital investment, for which they should be accountable, the same as a Crown Corporation. Surely, that is only reasonable. Surely, it is only proper that Members of Parliament have a responsibility to make those who receive subsidies and funds for capital investment accountable. Private corporations are just as accountable to Parliament as the Crown Corporations.
That is the point which I have been trying to make. I could make a list as long as your arm, Mr. Speaker, in answer to my hon. friend, of private corporations who tell us, "Leave us alone. We want deregulation. We want the marketplace to function and operate. Leave it to the free and open market , ad nauseam. 1 have listened to Liberals and Tories, the Chambers of Commerce, the manufacturers' associations, the exporters associations, for 15 years, who lecture us to leave them to the free and open market, to leave them alone, to deregulate. And every time, Mr. Speaker, the economy goes to hell in a handbasket, who are the first ones in line with their hands out, begging for a piece out of the public trough? They tell us they are prepared to take their chances of making a profit or going broke. They are the ones who tell us, these Grits and these Tories, that private enterprise is the way to go, and they are the ones who say, that if they go broke, they will not cry about it. However, they do cry about it and they come to Ottawa and ask for subsidies. They ask to get bailed out,
Supply
that is, the Chrysler's, the Massey-Ferguson's and the Mais-lin's of this world.
Whatever happened to private enterprise? If the Liberals and the Tories are correct, they should have let them go belly-up. They should have let them take their chances in the marketplace, Mr. Speaker. But, no, Sir, Mr. Speaker, they ask for loan guarantees, subsidies, money for capital investment. They should then be damned well accountable to Parliament for the funds which are provided to them both directly and indirectly, the same as would apply and should apply to a Crown corporation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions and answers? Comments? Debate.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words first about the motion, and the mover of the motion, particularly. The Hon. Member was quite kind to me and paid me a very interesting compliment, at least, that is the way I took it. He told me that I was too active. I have been reflecting on that subject for a while. He was kind enough to indicate a number of the programs and projects in which I have been, in his view, too active. He mentioned the Crow, the Maritime freight rates, Quebecair, and a number of others. I take this as a compliment because it is my view that the role of politicians is to be active. If they are to sin, as they must, because everyone does, they should sin on the side of over-activity as opposed to the opposite.
I am always reflective on Friday afternoons because the quality and the size of the audience leads to that. As I say, I have been reflecting on this subject. I believe that people go into this political process for much more than simply to administer current affairs. They do so because they believe in movement, because they believe in objectives which must materialize in their own lifetime. The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) put me in that mood. I recalled a book, which he should read, even if it is in French. I presume he is the future leader of his Party so he must be studying languages these days. The book is called Essai sur 1'acceleration de I'histoire.
The idea is simply to demonstrate that events today are happening faster and faster. In other words, changes which in the past would take a century or so to materialize, are now materializing in 50 years, 25 years, 10 years, 5 years. Consequently, the comment which the Hon. Member made on my super-activity is taken as a compliment because politicians and Governments in general will have to learn to tackle change in a much more rapid way because history is accelerating. We cannot afford any more to wait 86 years for the Crow to change. We must adjust more rapidly. That was my first reflection, and so I took his comment as a compliment and, hopefully, a few others will.
My second remark will be very brief. It has to do with what the Hon. Member said about what he called "the Air Canada affair", or the "Amyot affair", I do not remember exactly. I believe he used both expressions. I had a short discussion with a friend of mine yesterday-he is a mutual friend, as a matter

June 3, 1983
Supply
of fact-and I said to him, "Do not tell me that the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants is going to regurgitate all that again?" He thought so, but I said, "No, no. The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants is not going to do that this afternoon. He is going to talk about great principles, accountability, respectability, and that sort of thing. He is not going to repeat what he has said in the House and in committee so often now that I presume he is getting bored with the sound of his own voice". But he did, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member did. I was a bit embarrassed for him because I respect him. He is a great chap, a lawyer and a respectable person. I am quite sure that people in the audience must have been embarrassed for him as well, having to do what he did. In a sentence, for exmaple, he would say, "If Amyot ..." that is, the Chairman of Air Canada, " ... is at the centre of the investigation", then a few sentences after he would say, "and we do not know". Then a few sentences after that, he would say, "The man has been wheeling and dealing for his own personal gain". There are implications there that really are not worthy of a lawyer and a man who has respect for the law. I say that in all sincerity.
I was embarrassed so I will not continue with respect to the phone call I made at the time. I said what I had to say in the committee. My friend must admit that I extended myself as far as I could in the committee. When I did not know, I said I did not know. With respect to the phone call I made, there is no doubt that if the RCMP inquiry finds that I was negligent-what is the word, guilty of-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Indiscrete.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -indiscrete in making the phone call, even if it had been approved by the RCMP, as everyone knows by now, I will be the first to apologize. But I doubt very, very much that it will have any effect on the inquiry whatsoever. Suppose it does? Again I would be the first one to apologize for having done that. But again I did it with some approval because I knew it was a bit unconventional to do that. But then I thought the relationship between the Minister and the Chairman was of such a nature that it demanded that sort of a call. But this is all debatable; no one has a monopoly on truth and good intentions in this world, particularly the person who is speaking and the person who spoke.
Be that as it may, as you say so beautifully in English- [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, as I said a few minutes ago, on Fridays I always feel a little reflective and philosophical, so I have been reflecting, ever since I saw a motion would be moved concerning Crown corporations which, as we all know, are a phenomenon that is particularly popular in Canada. I do not think Canada invented the Crown corporation, but I do think Canada must have more of them than any other country in the world. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why this system is so popular in our country and what are the basic concepts of the
system of Crown corporations in Canada. It seems to me that the weakness in the speech of the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) was that he failed to discuss the philosophy and the concepts on which the Crown corporation is based. I do not wish to seem arrogant, but if he had fleshed out his speech a little by saying exactly what a Crown corporation is supposed to be and that the Minister of Transport was not acting in accordance with the principles of this system, I would have been impressed, but unfortunately I am not, because he failed to base his views on a more or less thorough analysis of the concept of a Crown corporation. In fact, that is why I asked him whether my hon. friend would like more control by the Executive over Crown corporations or more control by Parliament, and whether he wanted more autonomy for Crown corporations or whether he was in favour of privatization. I think all this is important. I have thought about it, and I know what I want. I am a Crown corporation enthusiast. It is one of Canada's great achievements. I think Crown corporations are respectable and I think we should appreciate the originality and the intrinsic value of this kind of system. I shall get back to this later on.
So what is a Crown corporation? Well, they are public enterprises whose shares are held by the Government. They have an economic purpose, at least the ones we are discussing today. Crown corporations in the transportation field have an economic function and purpose. They are created and governed by an Act of Parliament, by either specific or general legislation-in any case, I do not have to go into all that, since all this is generally known and they are accountable to Parliament through a Minister of the Crown, and it is a very essential characteristic of Crown corporations that they are accountable to Parliament through a Minister.
So here we have the whole problem of instruments, the entire range, if you prefer, of customary controls, which include the control exercised by the Minister himself, by the Executive, by Cabinet, by the Minister of Finance, by the President of the Treasury Board, and also by Parliament, which does so through the usual mechanisms of questions, debate, tabling of annual reports, and so forth, and last but not least, budgetary controls. So you see we are not particularly lacking in controls over Crown corporations. There may be a feeling that these controls should be improved, but the fact remains that there is a full-grown system in place with audits and what not. It is a complete system, created by Canadians, and it stands by itself.
In a few minutes, my Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis), is going to speak, and he will show how these controls have been improved in recent years and how they will be further improved in the future. The Hon. Member will talk about the progress that has been made in this area. I think we shall learn some interesting facts, such as the creation of a Crown corporation unit in the Department of Transport, whose task is to co-ordinate information. I do think we shall be hearing some very important and very
June 3, 1983

interesting facts. Mr. Speaker, this is not to say that we have no problems. We do have problems every single day, and they are brought up in the House in the questions I am asked. We do have problems, but I do not think we have a problem, that is, I do not think we have a really serious problem that threatens the very existence of Crown corporations. I do not think that is the case.
So what is a Crown corporation? I have tried to define this concept, but what is essential to a Crown corporation? It is a public enterprise existing within the framework of a mixed economy. In other words, we have Crown corporations or enterprises that are active in areas where the private sector operates as well. There is a measure of competition between the two. What is important as well about the Crown corporation concept is the fact that a Crown corporation is a public enterprise but nevertheless closely modelled after the methods, concepts, habits and techniques of the private sector. I want to emphasize this, because I think it is very important, and I am not being particularly original in saying that, because it is a commonplace in Canada. The Air Canada Act, for instance, clearly provides in Section 7 that:
"(2) In discharging its responsibilities under this Act, the Board-
-the Board of Directors-
__shall have due regard to sound business principles, and in particular the
contemplation of profit."
This is very important! Crown corporations are, in fact, hybrid institutions in which the private enterprise or rather the private enterprise philosophy has a role to play. Once again, all this can be found in any number of documents I could name, and I have an example here, a quote from Van Loon & Wittington:

-combining the need for some degree of public accountability with the freedom of initiative usually associated with private enterprise.
That is the conventional approach to Crown corporations, as I have been saying all along.

And that is what constitutes the value of this kind of enterprise and also its originality. Unfortunately, it is also the reason why Crown corporations are so often attacked. But why? Some people will say that it is because they are modelled too closely on private enterprise, and others that the resemblance is not close enough. And so the debate goes on, because some people, including the Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, are not quite sure about what they want. I do know what I want. I want the Crown corporation to have the goals of the public sector and the methods, techniques and psychology of the private sector.
I know what I want, and I think that as a rule, I do not contradict myself very often, because every time Hon. Members rise in the House to ask: "Does the Minister intend to tell the board of directors of Air Canada or CN or Northern
Supply
Transportation what to do?"-my answer is no! My answer is that I rely on the boards of directors of these corporations for handling routine business. In other words, I try to be consistent. I am not in favour of out-and-out interventionism on one day, and non-interventionism in the extreme the next.
One may ask why the Crown corporation is such a popular and widespread institution in Canada. If we look at the literature, it will give you five or six reasons to explain the popularity of this phenomenon in Canada. Geography and the demands of Canadian unity have contributed enormously to the creation of Air Canada and CN, for instance. There is no doubt at all that if this country were not as big and as sparsely populated as it is in certain areas, there would have been no need for the public sector to create these enterprises. The fact that we do have them is due to geography and politics. History, the Depression and the Second World War . . . During the Second World War, C. D. Howe, who was a private sector man if there ever was one, created 30 or so of these public enterprises. Another factor has been the increasing role of the State. The need to take up the slack of the public and private sectors has also been a factor. And in some cases, it was simply a matter of economic circumstances. I do not think we should make the mistake of assuming that the Government of Canada took over Canadair and de Havilland because of its socialist philosophy or just for fun or to be different. It did so because it had to. We had no choice. If we wanted to maintain this advanced technology industry in Canada, we had to act, and the Government's action was to create Crown corporations.
I am saying all this so that those who are listening will realize that the Government of Canada had a very practical purpose and very specific objectives in mind when it started creating these institutions. We must also remember that the popularity of Crown corporations is not restricted to the federal level but has filtered down to the provincial and municipal levels as well. Another important point I would like to make is that not one party in Canada has had a monopoly on creating Crown corporations. Many were created by the Progressive Conservatives, while the Liberals and Socialists have established a number as well.
My point is that although we may have reason to criticize the administration, operations and behaviour of Crown corporations, the fact remains that they respond to a basic given and need and to working methods that exist in Canada. Although criticism may be justified, I feel that as a general rule, we have every reason to be proud of what we have accomplished in this area in Canada. Once again, it is not something that is typically federal or municipal, Progressive Conservative or Liberal. In fact, what we have here is something that is truly a fundamental part of our political and economic life in Canada.
What does worry me a little, since this is an area where balance is of the essence, is that quite often I have noticed that some of my colleagues, and I am sure they are very well-

June 3, 1983
Supply
intentioned, would like to impose a kind of executive or parliamentary control over these corporations which I feel would be excessive. I know I am going to shock some people by saying this, but if we believe that the spirit of private enterprise is an essential characteristic of Crown corporations, we will not be doing Crown corporations a favour by trying to destroy that spirit.
It seems to me that we should ask ourselves one thing in this regard. I am not trying to force my views on my colleagues, but it seems to me we should ask ourselves whether the degree of Government control by the executive or Parliament itself over these corporations is not exaggerated occasionally. This is a serious question because I believe it is essential to strike a balance. I am not the only one to think so. What I am now saying is nothing new. If we look at certain writings, we find the following, for instance:
-that the Minister has nothing to do in the day to day operation of the corporation, but at the same time, he has the power to intervene if circumstances warrant it.


An Hon. Member:: I doubt it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am trying to put some reflection in the Hon. Member's mind. Hopefully, I will have success. The idea is simply that it is not easy to know when the Minister should intervene. The Minister should not intervene, certainly, each time the socialists ask him to because he will destroy the institution itself. That is for sure. It is not easy to decide each time there is a strike or each time the pensioners of one of these enterprises appears not to be fully rewarded for the wonderful work that they have done for the company, each time there is a layoff, each time the companies buy the wrong piece of equipment, according to the Members of the House, each time they do not locate at the right place, each time they do not defend the interests of the port of Montreal and the port of Halifax equally, each time they acquire a company which some Hon. Member thinks should or should not have been acquired, each time they do anything, really, each time nominations are made which do not meet with general support, each time some people here want to shake the institution itself.
1 am now reflecting, just saying to Members of the House that there is a delicate balance to maintain. It would be good if they reminded themselves of that fact.
[ Translation]
Having said that, I want to take a few minutes to point out that Air Canada and the CN which my Hon. friend is criticizing are nevertheless very sound companies with an excellent international reputation. I do not condemn his criticisms, but I simply want to remind the Canadian people that these companies have a remarkable credibility both nationally and internationally. Air Canada, since-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please!

I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Minister. I have been trying to signal him for some time now that his allotted time has expired. Perhaps he might seek unanimous consent of the House to continue. Is there unanimous consent that the Hon. Minister may continue his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


J. Michael Forrestall: What he is saying is ridiculous, but carry on, anyhow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is unanimous consent.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was desperately trying not to see you, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was speaking of the general quality of these Crown corporations. Air Canada, for example, is the tenth largest airline in the world. It is considered by everyone, even today, notwithstanding the accident that happened yesterday, to be a very efficient airline.


Mr. Lapointe (Charlevoix):: The best.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes. Since recapitalization in 1970, its profits have totalled more than $200 million. It paid $53 million in dividends to the Government of Canada.
The Act states that Crown corporations should behave in contemplation of profit. They do maintain a high degree of efficiency. I was speaking of the awards they have received in recent days. In 1982, Air Canada received the Air Transportation World Award for technical management and excellence. Just a few days ago, it received the Design Management Award. In 1982, it received the Excellence in Communication Leadership Award. That is not bad, internationally. It has a very high reputation.


Mr. Huntington:: Advertising.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes. More recently, Air Canada was rated ahead of all trans-Atlantic airlines in passenger service by a prominent British travel magazine. Similarly, it has been avant-garde in service to handicapped people, for example. Similarly, it has one of the most sophisticated computer communication systems. This is a company of which I think all Canadians should be proud.
I respectfully submit that this applies to CN, too. CN has a great reputation for efficiency. I was in India some months ago and saw CN and CP jointly looking for a contract for the computerization of the Indian railway system.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But they will not fix their own tracks here.
June 3, 1983


Jean-Luc Pepin: Nevertheless, they have a fine reputation. Perhaps it is not up to the standard of the Hon. Member who would probably like to see the rails table flat from coast to coast.
Since recapitalization, CN has shown a profit each year, except in 1982 due to the economic situation. CN also pays a dividend of 20 per cent of its earnings to the Government of Canada. Since 1977, these dividends have amounted to $145 million. My hon. friend does not believe in profit and that kind of incentive.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I did not say that.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, we suspected that from what he said a moment ago when he appeared to be saying that he would like not only to establish a greater domination by Government and Parliament on Crown corporations but also to take over a number of other companies like Eastern Provincial Airways. He also mentioned Power Corporation and presumably he had Voyageur in mind.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Accountability with what they do with public funds.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Be that as it may, CN is consistently ranked among the top five railways in North America for its safety record. CN does 88 per cent of its purchasing from Canadian sources, which is a very high percentage. I could go on.
My hon. friend is correct in seeing some aspects of the operation of these Crown corporations and their relationship with the Government as worthy of his chastisement and occasional angry chastisement. I want to balance the facts by saying that this is an institution to which Canadians have contributed tremendously in its development. We see here a balancing act between the spirit of free entreprise and public objectives and necessity. We have companies that have operated in a mixed economy and I think this has been a balancing act that we can be proud of.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 have one comment to make to the Minister. I listened very carefully to his position with respect to what Parliamentarians are about when they question the House of Commons, in the committee or when they assert, as I now assert, that Canadair is in violation of the Financial Administration Act. His position was that we are in some way attempting to control Crown corporations. That is not the purpose of those questions in the House and is not the purpose of questions in committee. It is not the purpose of our estimates process through which we can question Ministers and others.
What the Minister sometimes forgets and ought never to forget is that Parliament has no business as managers of Crown corporations. I know of no responsible Parliamentarian who would ever advocate that. Whether the Minister, the bureaucrats or the Government like it or not, our job is to hold Crown corporations or agencies accountable to the extent that we can with the machinery we have.
Supply
I want to make that clear because, in his George Bernard Shaw fashion, I believe the Minister was overstating the position that Parliament takes when it questions, doubts or raises alarm about occurrences in Crown agencies. I want the Minister to understand, and more importantly I want the public to understand, that as the Minister has the right to assert the place of a Crown corporation in the mixed economy or elsewhere, Parliament has a right to assert that those Crown agencies are under our control for the purposes of accountability. In many ways it is in our estimates that we grant a part of their funds and they cannot be separated. We do not want to run them; we want to make sure they are run properly.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured that the Hon. Member paid so much attention to what I said. If he wants to recall what I said, I talked about strikes, acquisition, lay-offs and about change in facilities. 1 was attempting to attract attention to the fact that there are more important matters to control. My view is a provocative reflection since this is Friday afternoon.
My hon. friend gave a speech of the same nature a couple of weeks ago. It is a thought that I have as a recipient of these questions and inquiries from Members who are looking for jobs for their electors and while it is all very nice, I must wonder nevertheless if we are not detailing our attempt to control these Crown corporations too much and should rather preserve our energy and time for the larger issues.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, the Minister very proudly announced the fact that Canadian National has paid $145 million in dividends since 1977. I believe that was the Figure and I presume it is the collective amount of dividends since 1977. He announced as well that Air Canada had paid $53 million in dividends. I believe this is a trend in the right direction.
Does the Minister have any figures on total dividends returned to the Consolidated Revenue Fund by our Crown corporations? Are they paying a fair part of the corporate tax load in Canada toward the provision of all the social services that we are so proud of in this country? Does he see any improvement to this? He has mentioned two Crown corporations, but are there others paying dividends and are they likely to pick up their fair share of the tax load?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am not an expert on the subject. I only have these two examples simply because I had them researched. My first reaction is that I do not think these cases of profit making can be generalized. I think that these are special instances.
I am enough of a socially oriented person not to be too greatly impressed by the size of the profit. I would have been more impressive had I been giving the size of the investments of these Crown corporations at the same time. The profit is nice but the extent of the investments that they make on an annual basis is a fact that I should have related as well.
It is my impression that CN and Air Canada are doing very well. They justify the pride we have in them.

June 3, 1983
Supply


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the Minister's responsibility for transportation as it relates to the resolution, which states that it has caused concern, chaos and confusion. I would like briefly to outline a situation of which the Minister is very well aware and which I think can generally be applied to many other areas in this country. It concerns the community of Bella Bella which is suffering from very high costs, problems with the delivery of mail and problems with economic development. It seems that other federal departments are expending large amounts of money in sustaining a community through band administration, income support and economic development, yet the Department of Transport has failed to make appropriate investments to support those other Government investments. Therefore it is not only jeopardizing the community but the money that the taxpayers have put into there as well.
The Minister is well aware that the community needs a rollon, roll-off ferry terminal and requires assistance to complete their airport and extend the runway. Could he explain why the federal Department of Transport is not prepared to act in such a way that it will support the investments made by other federal Government departments? Why is the Department of Transport not ready to go forward and support a constitutional requirement? The Canadian Government has a constitutional responsibility to the native people of this country.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear: the question has nothing to do with the motion and nothing to do with what I said.


Raymond John Skelly: Chaos.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes. You can put almost anything under chaos. The answer to the question-I have not looked at it in recent hours or days, but I was aware of the speech my hon. friend made some days ago-is simply that there are two candidates for further airport development in the area. Nobody has been able to make a decision as to where the development should be. One thing is sure: the distance between the two sites does not justify the expenditure of millions of dollars on both. Possibly cowardly, we have left the decision to the Government of the Province to make, it being a more local question, and provincial Governments being more locally oriented. Apparently the provincial Government is not making the decision. My hon. friend is giving me good advice and I have been thinking about it. The time may come one day when somebody will have to stick his neck out.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, I have one quick question for the Minister. I notice that my good friend and colleague from Laprairie has been talking about the airline industry in the past and especially the position of the Crown Corporation, Air Canada, in that airline industry. Has the Minister given any additional thought to the possibility that there could be some further deregulation of the airline industry and a reduction of Air Canada's monopoly position within it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have expressed my views on the subject during the hearings of the Standing Committee on Transport following a draft paper that I presented and following also an excellent report on the part of the committee. I could not agree with the committee on the role given particularly to regional carriers. I thought it was too fluid, too flexible. I was looking for something more categorized and I told them so very simply.
Since then my hon. friend, who is an ardent student of Canadian air matters, must have noticed some changes taking place. One of them, and I think this is very healthy, is the greater co-operation between airlines. Air Canada, for example, at the moment is working toward the restructuring of Quebecair. The Hon. Member has noticed also some kind of integration taking place between Eastern Provincial Airways and CPA. Again, these seem to me to be very healthy developments. A constant debate in Canada is: Do we have too many airlines? I would tend to believe that, although I will not be looking for a Russian approach to Canadian aviation-an Aeroflot approach. When I see these integration efforts I am very, very pleased.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I listened very thoughtfully to the earlier remarks made by the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) and the response this afternoon of the Minister in a philosophical way about Crown corporations and what they are. The Minister in his treatment quite rightly said that we must be careful about choosing the points of entry with respect to influence or control over those Crown corporations.
Would the Minister not feel that one of those very obvious points of entry with respect to accountability must come about when there are two or three serious conditions precedent or apparent? One of those, for example, is an abuse of corporate office. The second is the apparent inability to operate within simple guidelines, Canadair being one of those in that particular case. Would the Minister not agree that those areas that are publicly discernible as meriting intervention with respect to accountability of Crown corporations should, in fact, be used by the Minister and be seen by Government as a responsibility to intervene? Would the Minister comment for a moment on the means of entry? He has told us that we cannot intervene on all subjects. Would he now talk for just a moment about how we identify the justifiable intervention processes?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I would gladly allow the Hon. Member to keep on for another minute or two to illustrate in a more concrete fashion what he has in mind.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I might very briefly. The difficulty with Canadian National Railways' investment in Cast has aroused the concern of the Province, of the principal marine community involved. Canadian National has without an objection from Government. If Government in this case chose not to intervene because there was no objection from the Canadian Transport Commission, I assume that is a reason not to intervene. But when that Crown Corporation-in fact, CN has had to write down $62 million-is contemplating a massive
June 3, 1983

further expenditure to acquire all of the assets, or the remaining assets in this case of the Cast shipping group, would the Minister not feel that in terms of accountability there should be produced for review by the standing committee or this Chamber, at the very least, the audited statements of the company to be acquired? I am throwing out these suggestions to see whether or not these are tangible, acceptable levels of entry with respect to accountability.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, first of all, there was hardly anything philosophical in what I said this afternoon.


Thomas Scott Fennell: That is right.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I somehow react negatively when I am told that what I say is of a philosophical nature. What I talked about this afternoon was a very practical, down to earth, everyday decision-making process, the pains and the flagellations of every day. Therefore, there is nothing philosophical.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Professorial.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The approach might have been philosophical but the subject matter was very concrete.


Walter David Baker: Very real.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Very real indeed. I am paid to know it.
On the subject brought forward by the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), I agree with him 110 per cent that the subject he has raised in recent months in committees and in the House is a very important one. I respect him and I admire him for the intensity with which he has raised it. There is no doubt in his mind and in the minds of many people in his area of Halifax that the takeover of Cast by CN, on which the Government has not yet decided, is perceived as having a negative effect.
I think he will agree with me that I have tried, possibly in an adequate way, to address this issue with him. I have talked with him. He has questioned me, he was nice enough to do so, on the importance of vertical integration. I have described the situation in the Montreal area to him with CP having a set of alliances with Manchester, with Dart, with terminals in Montreal, in Europe and in England, with all kinds of shipping facilities.
Having taken the position in the Montreal area that CN must react, CN cannot simply for the sake of being accused by the population of Halifax of doing something perceived as negative ignore that situation and let pass the opportunity of an merger with Cast.
I then tried to give the Hon. Member some information. This is all on top of what the CTC said in 1975. 1 tried to give the Member information on rates charged by CN. I tried to remind him also that CN has ownership in the area of Halifax. 1 tried to reason with him on the subject of cost recovery. I have tried to give him some information on the extent of the investment of the Government of Canada in the Port of Halifax. This is a very important issue. If one wants an idea of what I had in mind a few moments ago when 1 talked about
Supply
being selective in our debates on Crown corporations, I think this is a good example. It is a very important one.
Every day Hon. Members ask me why CN has laid off two people in X, Y or Z, or why CN has not bought a Canadian product in this particular instance. They ask me how come, et cetera. I think we should reserve our debates for important subjects such as this one.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister was very clever. He used up about 40 per cent of our total speaking time by eroding our objections. The old saying "He protesteth too much" is very apt.
The Minister was very selective of Crown corporations for which he is responsible. He picked out CN and Air Canada. He did not mention the losses of VIA Rail. He did not mention the loss occasioned by Mirabel airport. He did not mention the cost of carrying the Pickering airport land. He was very selective.
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) gave a much better description of Crown corporations. They were established in the first place because they were in areas in which the private sector could not or would not take part and, if it took part, required public subsidy. It has gone beyond that. Also he mentioned the great C. D. Howe. Mr. Howe created a number of corporations in a wartime era. It was a necessity to survive World War II.
I am sorry the Minister has left the Chamber because I want to talk about his Department. When we ask him questions in the House of Commons, he always says that we should have given him notice. This indicates that his Department is so big he cannot control it. I would like to indicate for the record that the Minister does not know what is going on in his Department. He appointed Mr. McLeish as a consultant. He was the former deputy minister in charge of air transport. He was given the job of implementing the recommendations contained in the Dubin Report. The author of that report would not believe that the one man who was totally critical of him and working against him was the person who implemented the report because he did not believe in it. This proves that the Minister does not have control.
He talked about Crown corporations being in competition with the private sector. I could give a perfect example of competition between Crown corporations and the private sector. Petro-Canada receives money for every litre of gasoline sold across Canada. The money is used to acquire foreign companies which compete with Canadian companies. Canadian companies have to go into the equity and debt markets to raise money at high prices, so there is no competition. With the assistance that Petro-Canada has had, it still will not survive because it is in the marketing side as opposed to the exploratory side. I have to be brief in my comments this afternoon because I have to catch an airplane.


Mr. Cullen:: The Minister has left.

June 3, 1983
Supply


Thomas Scott Fennell: They are in Hansard anyway. My remarks will be recorded there and I can send them to my constituents.
It was interesting that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) was here, waiting for what the Minister had to say. He has a problem of his own. He and a group of people sitting in that corner are on the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. They are having a hard time over the Canadair situation. In November, 1982, the officials of Canadair appeared before the parliamentary committee and did not tell the truth. They have been featherbedding the situation in Canadair for the last four years.
The entire story was told by "The Fifth Estate". I am surprised the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) did not kill that program before it hit the air. The present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) and former Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce came out with a very interesting statement. He said:
1 was very lucky that I had just left the Treasury Board at that time, and I was just coming in Industry, Trade and Commerce, so the new President of the Treasury Board was not too much aware of what I was doing.
That is how it was funded. He did it on his own. It was probably one of the worst decisions the Government has taken in the last 15 years. It is just another example. It bought a company for $38 million some seven years ago. Last year the Government had to pump in $1,350,000,000, and this year another $260 million or $240 million has been requested. I get confused with all these amounts of money. The amount of money we have put into Canadair is more than the United States Government and the Canadian Government contributed to support Chrysler Corporation when it was in financial trouble. There are 4,800 jobs in Canadair. There are 150,000 jobs related to the Chrysler situation. That was money ill spent.
Now the company is blaming the engines. Officials say that what caused the trouble was that the engines were not big enough. That was stated by Mr. Bill Lear who designed the aircraft. He disowned it after it was redesigned by the people at Canadair. It was made big and fat and could not follow its original specifications. I am sure he would take back his original statement that there was no one in the United States intelligent enough to take this plane on. Unfortunately Mr. Lear is no longer with us. 1 am sure he would be disillusioned and would figure that if it were taken on as Canadair took it on, it would be a failure.
An example of what Canadair did can be found in the deal with Federal Express. Federal Express placed contracts for 25 airplanes. By the time the whole thing was over-and it only put down a deposit on one aircraft-Canadair paid $4 million to get out of the contracts and gave a plane for free. How can a corporation make money by doing that? It was ludicrous. It is typical of all Crown corporations in which the Government has become involved.
A Senator in Alaska was convicted for being bribed by Canadair officials to buy an airplane for the State of Alaska. Its employment record is deplorable. The Hon. Member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger) is somewhat disconcerted about the situation. He is more aware than anyone but no one will listen
to him. Canadair is not something unto itself. It is an example of the disrespect of the Government for the House of Commons.
The Auditor General should be able to review the operations of every Crown corporation. He should be able to check where the money went. If he finds that these companies cannot last on their own, they should be disbanded. We had a marvellous idea in 1979. We wanted to sell Crown corporations. Now they have gone so far down the tube that no one in the private sector would take them on. The only solution is to disband them, de Havilland is a prime example of Government corruption in the private sector. A friend of mine who was a very senior executive of De Havilland left that company when the Government took over. After six months, they had so much trouble that they asked him to come back. He only stayed eight months. In a conversation with him last fall, he told me that de Havilland was so badly run under the Government that it would never survive. The Government had destroyed all of the good that de Havilland had done. It destroyed any bit of credibility that de Havilland had built up. It ruined the company. It poured money into it, it had expenditures, it had people on the payroll. That is just another example of a very fine corporation that was destroyed by the Government. If we would have been able to stay in power in 1979, we would have put de Havilland back into the hands of the private sector and we would have saved a very fine Canadian organization.
There has been some talk that the cost of interest charges to Canadair equals 50 per cent of their sales. The truth of the matter is that that is not a representative statement because interest is not being charged. The Government knows that if interest is charged, it will just have to loan the money back to Canadair. There is really no interest being charged to Canadair at the present time on the Challenger mess.
Two years ago I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray), who was then the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, if he would explain to me why all of the undercarriages that had been shipped down to Teterboro Airport, New Jersey, had to be returned. He said that he did not know anything about it. The truth of the matter was that they were replacement undercarriages that were too light for the redesigned plane. That is just one example that I brought to the attention of the Government two years ago, and if the Government had listened then, it would have known about the trouble it was getting itself into.
The Government has given us information about the tremendous sales that are expected for Canadair. Those sales have not materialized. As recently as last November, the Government stated that it would sell 142 planes in the next year. Mr. Speaker, only 76 planes have been sold since Canadair started in 1981. I do not see a very positive outlook for the future because Falcon and another company are far outstripping Canadair right now. Canadair's product is not the product it was originally advertised to be. It is a failure. It costs Canadair
June 3, 1983

twice as much to build an airplane as the purchaser pays for it. This is ludicrous.
We have requested that the Canadair officials who were here in November come back to the parliamentary committee. We hope that they will be back next week because those people did not tell the committee the truth. If I could use the appropriate word in the House of Commons I would, but I cannot. They told an untruth.
We now hear, Mr. Speaker, that this whole situation will be handled by Maurice Strong. We hear that Maurice Strong and Senator Austin will sort all this out. Well, I believe that it is now too late. Next week when Mr. Strong is before the committee, I think our recommendation to him will be to suggest that he winds up the company. There is no future for it. It will not sell products. Canada cannot afford to get involved in luxury airplanes. Canada can afford the work that de Havil-land did for many years. Canada can afford planes like the Beaver and the Dash-7 for short take-off and landing, but even these have been destroyed by the new Government management.
I will reserve my comments on that, Mr. Speaker, but I personally believe that the Government should not interfere in business. I believe that encouragement and tax incentives should be given to the private sector, and that if the private sector cannot succeed, it should be allowed to fail. I believe the private sector should be allowed to succeed in freedom and fail in freedom. I do not believe in putting a crutch under these companies as we did for Petro-Canada, VIA, CN for many years, and all the other corporations across the country.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned a friend who had worked at the de Havilland, had left and had then gone back again. He did not mention his name. I wonder if he would be prepared to tell us who it was who had all this talent and skill and could make these conclusions.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, as this gentleman is a very close friend of mine and held a very senior management position, I would not divulge his name in the House of Commons. If the Hon. Member wanted to check, I am sure he could figure out who I am speaking of.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would choose to make a comment on the position put forward by the Conservative Party. After listening to debate today and after listening to the Hon. Member's speech, it is interesting to note that we are talking about specifics of the transportation system that affect the lives of Canadians in small communities, and we have talked about native peole. We are very concerned that the position put forward by the Conservative Party today is absolutely devoid of constructive alternatives to the present policy. The Canadian people know that the Liberal Government is incompetent, and I think that in many cases they know that it has been devoid of principled operating decisions.
On the other side of the coin, Mr. Speaker, one of the most dishonest things that I have seen in my time in Parliament is
Supply
the current role that the Conservative Party plays by chastising and ripping apart the Liberal Government without putting forward a constructive alternative. There are many people in the country who need alternatives in order to make proper choices. I suspect that what we have before us is illustrated by what was said by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) in Maclean's magazine in May of 1981. He said: "Of course the Liberals are incompetent, but if I told you what our Party would do, the people would never elect it". I think that is the comment that must be made about the kinds of speeches that are being made today.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Just like its leadership candidates.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I did say in my speech that I do not believe in Crown corporations. I do believe in encouraging the private sector through tax incentives. There are certain kinds of Crown corporations that were established by this Party and which had to be put in place because of the vastness of the country, but to put a Crown corporation in competition with the private sector is inequitable and unfair to the taxpayer because the taxpayer ends up subsidizing the Crown corporation rather than getting a deemed tax benefit from corporate taxes.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's last comment interested me. He said that he does not believe in Crown corporations. I think there are grounds for arguing in favour of more openness and fewer Crown corporations, but I would like to suggest to the Hon. Member that if the criteria that he suggested for determining the existence of Crown corporations were applied, that would mean that he and presumably his Party would privatize Air Canada, CN, Petro-Canada, and a great many other Crown corporations. Virtually every Crown corporation that I know of except perhaps AECL competes directly with the private sector in one way or another. If competition with the private sector is the criterion, is the Hon. Member saying that virtually all Crown corporations should therefore be privatized?


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I did say that there are certain Crown corporations that are required because of the vastness of the country, but 1 believe that any Crown corporation that can compete in the private sector should be sold to the private sector and that the Government should stay out of it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Debate. The Chair has been advised that the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) may have other obligations. It is not in the ordinary course of events that I should recognize him, but in the ordinary course of events I would look to the Hon. Member on my right. The Chair will need instructions.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has a long way to go. I would be quite happy to let him go ahead.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, today's debate is an important debate. I think it affords a good opportunity for Members of the House to comment on what could be considered the chaos, concern and dislocation that exists in the transportation system of Canada. In concert with

June 3, 1983
Supply
my previous remarks about the failure of the Conservative Party to express straightforward concerns that affect the lives of citizens of small Canadian communities, and because of its failure to express its policy positions on these vital issues, I would like to become very specific by choosing examples to illustrate where problems exist in our transportation system. The Minister and his Department must begin to act to bring transportation back to giving meaningul support to the economic and social life of Canada.
I should like to outline some problems that have been brought to me by people in the community of Port Hardy, British Columbia, regarding general aviation. People have questions about the dramatically escalating costs of the operations of General Aviation. They point out that the Minister and his Department have substantially increased landing fees at the airports, have increased parking fees and have created a situation where fuel costs for general aviation are exorbitant. The airport monopoly and, I would suggest, the price-fixing situation at many airports means that one litre of aviation gasoline in the area of 80 or 100 octane costs more than 60 cents per litre. That is absolutely absurd, Mr. Speaker. Basically it is unleaded pump gas. The cost is putting general aviation out of business.
The cost of radio licences went from $20 to $40, an unjustified 100 per cent increase which is passed on to the operators in general aviation.
The increase in regulations is a serious problem. We have no objections to safety and, indeed, commend the Minister on many of the things that have been brought forward to improve safety in aviation. We are getting to the point where we have regulation for the sake of regulation rather than for safety. This places more and more cost on the pilot and on the operator in general aviation. This point has been brought up by every operator I have come in contact with in my riding, every flying club, be it Sechelt at the Elphinstone Flying Club, the Powell River Flying Club, Comox Flying Club or at Port Hardy.
The other day the Minister bragged in the House that since he had imposed some of these cost increases he had increased the revenue from this source. I should like to tell him that from my examination of the situation at Port Hardy, it is my belief that he drove every private aircraft out of that airport. People flew into Port McNeill or somewhere else where they could store the aircraft and operate it at a reasonable cost. Some people just sold out because they could not afford to fly any more.
I should like to move on to other specific concerns of many Canadians. Within the air transportation system there is a group of dedicated, hard-working individuals-the flight service station air radio operators. Following the recommendations of Mr. Justice Dubin, the Minister recommended that these light service radio operators must control on and off runways, even though they operate remote stations. This was enforced. For example, a radio operator at one airport is
responsible, by a remote radio hook-up, for vehicle transportation at an airport at which he is not present. In airports such as Port Hardy, the radio operator cannot see all the runways on which he is required to control vehicles. I believe this creates a dangerous situation. We know it came about as a result of the Cranbrook air crash when a snowblower was on the runway at the time an aircraft attempted to land. I suggest that was not the fault of the radio operator but was a problem with airmanship, a problem with the plane, a problem with the communications system. But it was not a flight service problem. 1 suggest that Mr. Justice Dubin erred because sufficient information was not given to him.
The Department of Transport compounded the error by adding responsibilities for the radio operator which he could not reasonably fulfil. When radio operators reported that an error had been made, that they had inadvertently not given advice to the vehicle on the runway, the Department of Transport suspended some of them. The Department has been using tapes of communications in order to gather evidence against those people. I think the Department must remove the requirement that the flight service radio operator has to control traffic that he cannot see. That responsibility must be put back on the pilot and the vehicle operator who are the two people responsible, with assistance from the radio operator.
If the Department of Transport continues to suspend people who report operational problems and uses the tapes to reinforce that by gathering evidence, it is going to create a double-edged problem. People will not report operational deficiencies and that will jeopardize the safety of the system. This will also jeopardize the communications system because the radio operator will begin to be careful about what he puts on the tape.
I suggest the Department must eliminate the mandatory requirement for controlling vehicles by flight service radio operators. It must guarantee, through the collective agreement and through Department of Transport policy, that the tapes will never be used for disciplinary action but will simply be used, in co-operation with employees, to remove operational deficiencies. That is imperative in order to ensure the integrity of the air safety system.
I want to mention briefly the air accident which occurred in Cincinnati yesterday and to seek the co-operation of the Department of Transport to provide the information that I as a Member of Parliament want and which I am sure every other Member wants. I want the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to lay before the House information on the flammability of fuselage interiors in major commercial aircraft.
I want the Minister to provide information about the production of poisonous gases from the combustion of material in the aircraft fuselage.
I should like the Minister of Transport to also lay before the House an explanation of firefighting equipment, fire-detection equipment, training programs and safety procedures in major commercial aircraft terminals.
June 3, 1983

I should also like to know what is available in terms of personal fire protection equipment for passengers on major commercial airlines, and the adequacy of such equipment.
The tragedy in Cincinnati has created a situation that I know has concerned many people for a considerable period of time. It does not relate to the present accident. It reminds me and others of situations which have occurred in the past but have been left fallow. I believe the Department and the Minister made commitments to produce such material and it is time it was laid before the House.
I should like to move to another area of chaos in the system, Mr. Speaker. The Dubin Commission talked about the Air Accident Investigation Tribunal. That legislation was ready before Christmas; it has been delayed long enough. That Bill must be brought before the House before we adjourn in June so that we can look at it over the summer and be prepared to move on it in the fall.
I want to talk briefly about the community of Bella Bella and the Indian Heltsuk Band. The Indian name of that community is Waglisla. Millions of dollars are spent in that community by the federal Government on the 1,000 people who live there. It is provided through Band administration funds, unemployment insurance, economic development-it all hinges on a reasonable transportation system. The transportation system is not being used to support federal Government investment in that community. The transportation system and the Department of Transport, by their failure to act, are jeopardizing a great amount of taxpayers' money.
I should like the Minister to explain to the House how he can fail to fulfill the Government's constitutional responsibility to the Indian people. There are 1,000 people in that community whereas in the community he mentioned on the other island, which is half a mile away, where the Government is allowing the airport to be built, there are only 60 people. The hospital, the doctors and the places where medical evacuations will occur are all in the community on the Indian side. The basic thrust of economic development is on the Indian side. The taxpayers' investment is on the Indian side. There is a constitutional requirement to support Indian people and there is also a logic for doing so.
It just defies description that the Minister can avoid putting in that facility. That community has needed for years and years a roll-on, roll-off ferry. The ferry pulls in and out but there is no roll-on, roll-off facility. That simple fact has driven the cost of living up in that community beyond what any of us would ever tolerate, and it has also meant, because of the failure to develop an adequate transportation system, that the mail system is chaotic and that their economic development is bound for failure. It debilitates any attempt at constructive planning and development in that community. The Minister said it is a bit of cowardice that we have not made a decision on it. It is one of the most cowardly acts which I have seen in this House. It is an absolutely wrong-headed, counterproductive process which the Government is taking today. I would
Supply
urge the Government, if it does one thing before the people of Canada, in justifiable outrage, throws the Government out of this House, to please put in that facility. Do something which is morally and appropriately correct.
My constant theme when speaking about the transportation system has been Bella Bella, because it illustrates problems in coastel communities. However, that problem extends from Alaska to the 49th parallel in small communities up and down the coast of British Columbia. The Minister mentioned the provincial Government. The provincial Government has failed to fulfil its responsibilities to communities which are not native communities. So be it. That is a provincial responsibility and it has jurisdiction there. However, this Government has a responsibility to Indian people which they are failing to deliver.
For the edification of the Minister and the officials of the Department of Transport, I would like to point out that there is a community at Klemtu, the Kitasoo Band. Several hundred people live there and are struggling with air transportation, which is irregular and very expensive, and a mail system which is disrupted. They cannot function properly with Band administration and with economic development because of the failures in the transportation system. They could not get their kids home from boarding school one Christmas because the ferry does not go in and out of there on a regular basis. They need an appropriate facility and they need the federal Government to tell the Province of British Columbia: "If you accept federal assistance you must provide decent service to Indian communities"; or the federal Government must ensure that its responsibility is fulfilled. Klemtu is a perfect example.
Owikeno is another perfect example. Alert Bay is another. I would urge the Minister of Transport and this Government to take a very hard look at native communities from Alaska to the 49th parallel border with the United States, at how it is fulfilling its responsibility, and that its failure to fulfill its responsibility properly is jeopardizing millions of dollars which are being invested in economic development, income support systems, and Band administration in those communities. It is vitally important to remember, Mr. Speaker, that regardless of where we are today, and of where the provincial Government is today, the Canadian Government has a constitutional responsibility to support Indian people. The Government also has a rational responsibility to protect the investment of the taxpayers of Canada who want the programs to go ahead in that community.
I believe that the points I have raised on the air transportation side are extremely important. The Minister should be presenting that material to the House so that we know where we are going with it. The second issue is that responsibility to Indian communities is paramount. I hope that before we leave this Parliament there will be some action in an attempt to rectify long-standing wrongs in that particular area.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, comments, answers? Debate.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate this after-

June 3, 1983
Supply
noon. I read with some interest and, I must say, some confusion, the motion of the Official Opposition. It is a typical Opposition motion in that it covers the whole waterfront; it covers the ball park, has everything in it that you could want, but yet has no particular focus.
I thought that possibly by listening to the address of the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) we might get some idea of just where the focus would come. I listened but I listened in vain. Something I did agree with in what the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants said was his compliment to our Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin).
In looking at the candidates for the Leader of the Official Opposition Party, I was thinking that one is bilingual, one has business experience and another has other attributes, having lived in Quebec. How fortunate they would be if they had our Minister of Transport as a candidate. He is fluently bilingual, a businessman, has had experience in the House of Commons and has the talent and ability to the extent that he receives compliments from Members of the Opposition Party. If they had one like him as a candidate for the leadership, it would be a shoe-in. We are proud of our Minister of Transport. We recognize that he also had the intelligence to pick the right Party of which to be a Member.
If one reads the motion, one sees the Official Opposition saying something like "losing control of Air Canada", and yet I wonder what is the position of the Official Opposition. We have leadership candidates telling us they would sell Air Canada which, of course, would mean no control of Air Canada. Are we to believe the leadership candidates, one day one of whom will be leading this particular caucus, or are we to accept what the caucus says, that we should have more control over Air Canada? I would be an interesting debate to take place, I am sure.
Everyone has their own particular gripe with Canadian National, Mr. Speaker, whether it is the fact that the freight is not picked up on time; but I believe the Minister hit the nail on the head when he said: "That is not the sort of thing we should be debating in the House of Commons. It should be the more important issues as they affect policy, the over-all position of Canadian National as to whether it should or should not be participating in a particular project."
One of the concerns I have is the recent move to some rationalizing, which is spreading fear among employees of Canadian National. These are people with 15 years and 20 years' experience, that kind of seniority, and they have some apprehension about their jobs because of the centralizing which is taking place, in the interests, of course, of saving money, perhaps, in the long run. I think it is those people we should be putting the emphasis on at Canadian National. People who have given CN 15 years and 20 years of their lives should not have apprehension about possibly losing their jobs because someone else has 25 years' experience, and seniority will out. I believe there is a social obligation which CN has and we should be focusing on that if we are looking in this particular area.
We have heard comments today about Canadair. I believe here again we have the destructive force of the Conservative Party at work. We are reminded of the Avro Arrow which was put out of service, in effect closed down by the Conservatives because they could not stand the heat of some problems which the Avro Arrow was facing at that time. In the long run, however, what a terrible cost to Canada! The technology which we had in place and which would have put Canada in the forefront of the air industry we lost because our technologists went to Houston and created great names for themselves in NASA. By its very nature the aircraft industry is the kind of industry which requires trial and error, requires the use of various components, in order to put the best mixture together and come out with the best aircraft. The same is true with the Challenger aircraft. To have it pilloried by the Opposition Party I believe does a disservice to the Canadian people who are endeavouring to make this work.
I was surprised to hear today the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) blithely say "Close it down, shut it down", because Canadair is having problems at the present time. That surely is not the approach, Mr. Speaker. Surely the approach is to do what we can to preserve this particular enterprise and make it a success. It was interesting to hear the Hon. Member for Ontario comparing figures about what the Government of the Province of Ontario and the federal Government have done with respect to loan guarantees for Chrysler, and how Chrysler is proving to be a marvellous success. All of a sudden that is a good idea. But it was not a good idea at the time as far as the Official Opposition was concerned. Fortunately, we did not panic and took the moves which were necessary in order to preserve the company, yes, but, more importantly, to preserve jobs, something which is important to Liberal Members of Parliament. I would hope they would also be important to Opposition Members. Now they seem to be applauding the actions we took at that particular time.
When I talk about Tory tactics of destruction, I think of questions asked by the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) where she selectively pulled something out of a particular report and said: "Well, the planes are useless during many weeks of forest fire season; the planes are supposed to get water but the water is covered with ice". She went on to say that because she was from British Columbia she had spent a good deal of time in the Yukon and Northwest Territories and knew this. What she neglected to mention is that that is not the height of the forest fire season in the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
Like her, I have spent time not only visiting, as she apparently did, but I actually lived in that particular area for more than a year and know something about freeze-ups and breakups and times when fire hazards are at their peak. We know the peak is in July and August when the lakes are free of ice and when these particular water bombers can do the job they were designed to do. Neither did she make reference to the fact that they can be filled up with water on land or that chemical retardants can be used in the event it should be

June 3, 1983
necessary during the freeze-up period. The plane does not require open water for operation. Fully loaded, it can take off from hard-packed strips as short as 3,500 feet. So there are actually a greater number of airfields available to the water bomber than to the aircraft presently in use, which requires a 5,000-foot runway for its operation.
We are looking for international markets, Mr. Speaker, and to Canadair's credit they have found international markets. But bad mouthing and criticism of the sort we have had recently does not do a great deal to help us move into international markets.
On May 29, for example, Canadair signed a multimillion dollar contract with Lockheed-Georgia Company of Marietta, Georgia. This contract calls for the Canadian aerospace firm to provide components for the new Lockheed C-5B military air transport. The U.S. Air Force plans to buy 50 of these aircraft. Canadair will build the aft cargo doors, the ailerons, the leading wing edges and other components of the new plane. This is the kind of initiative we want to encourage because it means a $200 million contract and 700 Canadian jobs between now and 1986. If we close down Canadair, Mr. Speaker, not only would we not be participating in this kind of contract, but that money would not have been available to the Canadian economy.
As I indicated, Canadair manufactures the water bomber. It is a twin-engine amphibian used mainly to fight forest fires. Seventy-four have been sold to customers in eight countries, including France and Spain where it is widely used. The federal Government and six provincial Governments recently announced plans to assemble a fleet of firefighting planes using the CL-215. Here again is an excellent illustration of cooperation between the provincial and federal Governments. There is direction from the top, not a lack of direction as the Opposition motion seems to indicate.
Canadair has built more than 3,900 aircraft since 1944, 580 of which are supersonic. Canadair's project to develop the Challenger as a wide-body transcontinental business jet should be encouraged. Admittedly we have to look at any problems which may arise, but there are ways of being critical without putting it in the public eye to the point where people in the international markets look at this and say: "Well, we are not going to buy that; it looks like a turkey". That makes the task of Canadair all that much more difficult. So far 76 of these planes have been delivered.
The motion seems to suggest a lack of control, Mr. Speaker. But recognizing the problems in companies such as de Havil-land, Canadair and others, and recognizing there has to be some measure of business expertise brought to bear to help out these particular corporations, the Government announced the Canada Development Investment Corporation as a means by which this kind of business expertise can be brought to bear so that companies having difficulties will have access to this kind of assistance.
We know that Canadair and de Havilland are incurring significant losses. Of course, this is partly due to the international recession. A great deal of CDIC's time has been spent on financial and marketing analysis, particularly in the case of
Supply
Canadair. A short time ago the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) tabled his supplementary estimates which include provision of $300 million for the aircraft companies. This amount will ensure that these two companies continue to operate in the normal course of business while the process of analysis continues. The goal of CDIC is to put both of these companies on a basis which will allow them to continue to operate without substantial requirements for equity investment for their current products. The CDIC legislation stipulates that new programs and products would require new investment.
There have been some suggestions that this is being done on the quiet or that there is not enough information available. Well, the Minister responsible for the CDIC has advised the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs that he would appear, along with officers of CDIC, before the Committee on June 7 to provide a report on financial and other business matters concerning Canadair and de Havilland. At the same time CDIC officers will appear before the Public Accounts Committee to discuss Canadair.
Members will agree that a start has been made in the right direction by CDIC to strengthen these aviation companies to ensure that Canada is an international competitor in this very important high-technology industry for many years to come. Surely that objective is more appropriate than simply throwing up your hands, as the Hon. Member for Ontario would do, and saying: "Just close Canadair down, it's a loser". Well, thank heaven that is not the Liberal Government's approach. I am sure the employees of Canadair will be interested in hearing the Hon. Member's comments. I hope he is not speaking for his Party, if anyone can in fact do that at the present time.
There are occasions, Mr. Speaker, when a key industrial enterprise requires Government help to help it overcome difficult times. If such companies have the capacity to recover, with some help, then it makes little sense to see them fail. Not only would the Hon. Member for Ontario see them fail; he would push them into failure.
No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the way we should be operating in this country, particularly when we are talking about difficult industrial enterprises such as the air transportation field. What the Government needs is a professional, experienced and commercially-oriented source of advice on how to handle specific situations in the future. Of course, not every company seeking help should get it. CDIC will operate in close contact with the business and financial community. It will, naturally, be a useful source of advice on business conditions. It will provide advice on where Government assistance might be beneficial or what financial alternatives are available in each situation.
Some two years ago, in an address I gave to the Sarnia Rotary Club, I indicated that we had to stop this ad hoc approach to helping industry, be it Dome, Chrysler, Maislin, Canadair, de Havilland or whatever. People come with best intentions and an obvious need for assistance and decisions have to be made by provincial and federal Governments almost

June 3, 1983
Supply
on an ad hoc basis. As a matter of fact, that is pretty well the way it has been done. Here we have the CDIC which will bring about a more professional business-oriented approach so that companies, if they seek help, will know what the ground rules are. The Government will also have some guidelines established so that it will know which companies it should help and those it cannot.
I welcome the pragmatic response by Government which I think CDIC provides to the needs of this particular day. It will help manage better what the Government already owns. It will provide important advice. It will be an extra means for Government to help rebuild our industrial sector at a time when Governments throughout the western world are taking strategic steps in key areas, such as aviation/aerospace, microelectronics and computers, and telecommunciations, to ensure they can participate in these vital industries of the future.
If I have a fault to find with this motion of the Opposition, and there are many faults to find, it is the fact that there is a lack of focus. I think that was borne out by the Hon. Member for Ontario because, when the Minister of Transport responded in a positive and, I thought, effective way to the questions which were being asked, the Hon. Member for Ontario immediately retreated to another ground and said; "Oh, yes, but you did not mention this and you did not mention so and so". It is not the motion of the Minister of transport that we are debating today; it is the motion of the Official Opposition. The Minister was confining himself to the subject matters raised in that particular motion. I think it was appropriate that he should do so, trying, at least, as best he could, to give some focus to the debate, which we have tried to do.
I think the Hon. Member for the New Democratic Party who last spoke discussed many of the local situations and issues. However, in the final analysis, he was saying to the federal Government; "Direct the Province. You people have done something. You are making money available in British Columbia in these particular areas to do these particular things. Now tell the British Columbia Government that it must take some initiative and do the sorts of things that the federal Government is doing. It is putting money, expertise and help into these areas; but it does need some help from the provincial Government". So his chastising, if you will, was primarily directed at the provincial Government rather than at that which the federal Government has been doing.
Rather than losing control, I think the federal Government, through the creation of the CDIC, through the help which it has given to various industries rather than closing them down, through a whole series of actions, has shown that it is taking control in the areas where it should be moving and leaving to the private sector that which the private sector can do so well.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, it is Friday afternoon and here we are again-


Jesse Philip Flis: The House is full.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: -with a full House and the Minister present, and I appreciate that very much, Mr. Minister. I have been quite interested in the nature of the Minister's remarks.
He gave us a little lecture. He said that a Crown corporation, with shares held by Government, must have an economic purpose governed by legislation and be accountable to Parliament through a Minister. As we have moved to a corporatist society, we have gone way beyond those definitions. If we are limiting ourselves strictly to some 57 Crown corporations under the legal definition, then that is one thing. If we are discussing the creation of non-governmental bodies with unbelievable powers outside the realm of surveillance, questioning and inquiry on the part of the House of Commons, then that is quite another.
What is happening is that a subgovernment outside of the purview and examination of parliamentary committees is running quite out of control. If it has an economic purpose, that is one thing. I am standing on this side of the House with a Party which has been responsible for the incorporation of many of our Crown corporations. Back in the history of that evolution there was such a need on the part of Government because infrastructure had to be built and the scales of economy and the marketplace just were not sufficient to cover the investment needed on the part of the private sector.
We seem to have gone through a series of phases in history in terms of Crown corporations. We have gone beyond the phase when we needed the CNR and when the Government had to help the CPR. Unlike the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and the NDP, I am glad that we have a private sector railroad and a government sector railroad. They keep each other in balance and they should keep each other from causing a monopoly to develop, because nothing in the way of infrastructure affects our lives more than transportation. One must only consider how the villages of the United Kingdom opened up when canals were dug to connect one group of tradesmen to another group of craftsmen. This competition led to the industrial revolution. That is the way it has been. We have gone through rail, through ships, slow ships and now high-speed ships, from bulk handling into container handling and unitized handling. It has been necessary for the CNR to go into fields where it has had to become involved with Cast.
I guess what is troubling so many of us in the House of Commons and people in the country at large concerns the question of accountability. Where is the accountability and the answerability? Who is impressing upon these non-departmental bodies, these Crown corporations and these Ministers to whom they are supposed to be answerable, how well the investment is being used?
We hear of the great need for a mix between the private sector and the Crown sector or Government sector. That is fine. What is so different is that the private sector is held accountable by the tax collector. The Income Tax Act states that one can do this and one cannot do that, and that one will pay taxes. If one has losses in the private sector, there is no way out. The bank and the debtors call one to account and one is out. However, those rules do not apply to the Government
June 3, 1983

sector, the Crown corporation sector and the Crown agency sector.
What we are doing here is giving these Government entities a special set of rules. We are giving them Her Majesty's agency status. We are incorporating them under Acts of Parliament and under the Canada Business Corporations Act, which is an entirely different ball game. They are exempt from the rules and laws of the Provinces. They can borrow money at the cost of the Government. They have Government guarantees and are exempt from the rules and laws of the land which apply in terms of competition, because in Government agencies, with agency status cartels are completely legal. One cannot touch a Crown corporation, or a Government body which has agency of Her Majesty status, that performs acts that would put any of the rest of us in jail or bring us before the courts.
What has been done? The Government has overbalanced, overloaded and tipped the whole pile of wood over in favour of non-accountability. Human nature being what it is, whether it is in the private sector or in the Government sector, bureaucracies being what they are, all that is involved is power. To me, there is very little difference between bureaucracy in the private sector vis-a-vis bureaucracy in the Government sector or bureaucracy in a large corporation. It is all power. The great untaxable thing that we are facing today is the privilege and enjoyment of power over people, over money, over decisions and over assets. The rule books are different.
Therefore I can tell Your Honour, and I hope the Minister is listening, that there is no way the private sector will survive unless we hold this subgovernment sector to account to the House of Commons through House of Commons committees. It is accountability, answerability and value for money concepts that are so important today. I cannot understand why the Government keeps resisting the need for stronger parliamentary committees which can deliver a high standard of accountability.
I will say to the Minister through Your Honour that in no way, shape or form does the Opposition or do the backbench Members of Parliament want to interfere with the Government's right to govern. In no way, shape or form is that the objective. In no way, shape or form is the objective for control to be in the House of Commons. However, if the system is to survive, and if there is to be competition which forces better ways of doing things to turn the nation into a more productive one, and to give us the drive and the environment to do things better and to achieve our place in world markets rather than through cartels and monopolies, then there will have to be some answerability and accountability through the House of Commons system.
I would plead with the Minister to support some of the action and very hard work being done by Members on all sides of the House in this direction. For instance, the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure has been working in this area for some nine months. If we do not bring about that condition of answerability and accountability and
Supply
we let the rule books and accountability standards remain so uneven, I can envisage the private sector disappearing altogether.
For example, we heard the Minister compliment Air Canada. If I was the Minister of Transport I would be very proud of Air Canada as a Crown Corporation. But may I say that some years ago, back in the Thirtieth Parliament, I was lobbied by Air Canada pilots who told me of the terrible conditions and bleak future of Air Canada if the top personnel was not changed. We were fortunate as a country to have Mr. Taylor come in as Chief Executive Officer. He knows how to run an airline and every other airline in the world knows it. He does a first-class job and, in my opinion, he is a first-class executive. But how can a competing private sector airline survive with the advantages that Air Canada has? The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) just told us this afternoon that Air Canada has had to pay approximately $56 million in dividends. Last year, Air Canada was involved in a $38 million loss in its last quarter yet it was able to cut its tariffs and selling prices by a very substantial amount in the peak season.


Jean-Luc Pepin: To fill the planes.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: To fill the planes. It was losing $38 million but was in a position to cut its tariffs in the peak season in order to fill the planes when the private sector airline could not do it. In that same period the private sector airline lost its working capital. If it were not the subsidiary of a corporation as large as Canadian Pacific investments, it would not exist.
I have been suggesting in the House for some time now that if we were not able to cancel the debts of Canadian Pacific Airlines in the same way we cancel Air Canada's debt-if the equations were not in balance-there would be no way for the private sector airline to compete with a Government subsidized airline.
I speak of CPA because their head offices are in my region. I want to see that payroll survive as, I am sure, the Minister does as well. The factors must be balanced. It is easy for us in the House to cancel the debt of Air Canada. It is the only airline in North America that need not worry about having so much equipment backed up against the fence. It is the only airline that can survive while having so much equipment unused.
On the other hand, CP has one of the best records in the world in terms of air time on their equipment. They must make full use of their equipment because they cannot survive unless they implement every single productivity trick in the book in terms of productivity. This involves the management of capital, capital equipment and personnel. The personnel at Canadian Pacific have a different spirit because they realize the delicacy of their jobs.
I will say again to a very reasonable Minister of Transport-[DOT] as long as he does not bring in the Crow-that if this equation is not addressed I must come to the conclusion that it is a deliberate Government policy to peel the orange of Canadian Pacific Airlines with all that will do.

June 3, 1983
Supply
I can suggest what the Chief Executive Officer of Air Canada will do if the orange of Canadian Pacific Airlines is peeled. He will turn that very efficient national airline into an airline of box lunches. I remember from a conversation with him some years ago that the cost of proper service and the better treatment of passengers according to the standard that was being set by a competing airline was causing him to scratch his head in terms of the P&L. He questioned if he could get into this box lunch approach instead of the fancy service which is provided on the airlines. I agree with that in some respects but it is competition that causes good standard of service to be delivered.
My plea to the Minister is that he recognize this serious situation. While I have his attention let me say that I do not know how a company like Canadair with the problems it has can advertise in this manner. 1 do not know how they can do it or what purpose it serves.
While I am on the subject of Canadair, I remember back in 1979-1980 when the problem of the quality of the order book to justify the original investment was brought to my attention. This comes back to the problem of behaviour in that subgovernment and the need for accountability. At that time an order for 25 Challengers was laid on my desk. The person who gave that order in Europe did not have the wherewithal, the means or the intention to buy 25 aircraft. Yet those bookings were the justification for the Government's investment in the first place.
I would like to see Members of Parliament become far more knowledgeable and supported by sound research abilities in our accountability committees. I believe Members should have some expertise to enable them to examine the parameters of and justification for some of these investments. No matter which Government is in power it will be presented with Cabinet documents providing options on which decisions will have to be made. However, I believe that it is ultimately up to us as the elected directors of the shareholders of Canada to do a better job in that respect than is being done presently.
The issue surrounding the water bomber question troubles me. The thing I love about Canada and what I suppose has attracted so many people to this country is that one could come here with nothing. One could be born in poverty, and I believe that it is actually an advantage to be raised in this country with very little in the way of material possessions. People with little gain a burning hunger to want more. Therefore people learned to work, educate themselves, save money and take risks. They may get burnt but would come back again. That is what built this country. If there is no balance in the rule book or a measure of accountability and answerability by this Government's subsector, and it is allowed to run wild, I believe that that dream which energizes so many people will be lost.
With respect to the water bombers, is it fair that because there is a threat of a plant closing down in one city of Canada to subsidize a great fleet of equipment? What does that do to all the independent helicopter operators across the country who sit idle all winter with their equipment waiting to service the provincial needs for forest fires, the mining needs, the
exploration needs and other requirements? Each time a factor such as the water bomber proposal is put into the country's economy, what happens to the private sector that is waiting with its investment in a service? I am thinking in particular of a good operation at Pat Bay which has been carrying on business for years re-engining World War II equipment as water bombers. Is it now in or out of that field of endeavour? I would remind the Minister that even Bill Davis is flying a water bomber these days.
With respect to the accountability equation, for the Minister's benefit I am holding a series of reports from 1978 on. A colleague of his, a former President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State of Economic Development, was deeply involved in this package, as were other Members on his side and on this side. They were calling for an improvement in the accountability equation on this subgovernment.
I would appeal through you, Sir, to Members on the Government side to pay a lot of attention to this because I think it threatens our whole system and society. We are delivering power and privilege to a few people who move through this world. There will be examples coming down very soon of privileges being abused. We are incapable in this House of holding that whole subgovernment sector to account. There has been report after report from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on this issue, which issue is not being heard by the Liberal Government. It is my plea through this very reasonable Minister of Transport, who has had many bouquets lavished on him today, to carry this concern through because it is very serious. I would like to see us strengthen our function and the delivery of our duties and responsibilities by picking up the challenge that we are dealing with in this motion today.
In closing, if my mother were treated by my late father's employer in the way the Member from Regina's mother was treated when his father died, I would be fighting louder and harder in the socialist camp than I do on this. There is a message for the private sector and for the government sector.
I disagree very much with the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) when he cries out for special privilege for employees employed in Crown corporations and government structures. What about the majority of people employed in the marketplace where the filters of competition, use of capital and accountability apply? I do not think people working for the Government, for CNR, or for Air Canada should enjoy a special privilege. If we are going to talk about equality and equity, let us make available the same privileges in pensions and benefits and everything else more widely across the land. Let us remove this special privilege from those who work our corporate schemes.
Could you let me know how much time I have left, Sir? I see you are indicating that my time has expired. I thank you for your tolerance, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 3, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am, of course, willing to extend an extra few seconds if the Hon. Member wishes to complete his remarks. He may be satisfied with the opportunity for questions and answers.
Are there any questions and comments?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). I know he has many valuable ideas regarding accountability. Some of his ideas I would personally like to see implemented in this institution of Parliament.
The Hon. Member for Capilano talks a lot about subgovernment. There is no doubt there is a subgovernment that is becoming more and more powerful while the elected representatives of the people become less and less powerful. There is also in our system what I would now call the fetish of ministerial responsibiitv where Ministers are held accountable for everything within a vast array of departmental networks and Crown corporations. We all know there is no human being who can follow all of those activities and really be accountable for them.
Would the Hon. Member care to comment on the possibility of exchanging the theory and practice of ministerial responsibility for the greater accountability of this subgovernment, as he calls it quite rightly, to committees of Parliament?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, that is a very astute question raised by the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport. It is humanly impossible for a Minister to be responsible for the activities within Crown corporations and agencies over and above the activities within his own department. How are you going to judge and evaluate the service of the activities to the objectives as stated? Who will help us with that evaluation?
I think the concept of mininsterial responsibility has to remain, but we also have to move to the concept of deputy minister responsibility in terms of management and in terms of holding the management of departments and corporations accountable for the manner and the efficiency with which they serve, the mandate and the objectives for which they were incorporated to serve. That is where we, as Members of Parliament, fall down in my opinion. That is why I think the accountability equation or system that we in the House have to use has to be separated into two concepts-policy and ministerial responsibility, and management and deputy minister responsibility. I hope there is some move toward a comprehension and an agreement in that area.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member's idea coincides pretty closely with my own with respect to ministerial responsibility. The Minister should be responsible for policy decisions but the administrative responsibility should be assumed and charged to the administrators.
In recent days and for some time we have heard many arguments that the Auditor General should have more access to the books of Crown corporations. I would like the Hon. Member's reaction to that. I have a great concern. If all of
Supply
these Crown corporations are audited by the Auditor General, it seems to me we are creating another of these bureaucratic empires and I wonder in the final analysis who will audit the Auditor General.
I wonder whether the accountability about which the Hon. Member talked in his speech of these Crown corporations to well staffed committees of Parliament would not be a much better route to go. I ask that question because every time we create a stronger central agency it seems to me we slow down the decision-making process.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I would think the Auditor General of Canada by mandate and by Act passed in this House should be the auditor of any Crown corporation or agency requiring a draw on the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada. If it is a Crown corporation that is earning its own way, behaving properly and paying a dividend to its shareholders-the people of Canada-that Crown corporation could go to the private sector. I certainly think the Auditor General of Canada who is an officer of the House-he is the one Officer we have-should have access to the working papers of all audits on Crown corporations and non-departmental agencies.
I think we, as Members in this House, should have access to that kind of information. The Auditor General has to be judicious in how this information is fed to the committees.
The other point made by the Hon. Member was that the standing committees of the House and the four new key accountability committees should be well staffed with research people in order to give us the ability to match that of the bureaucracy around us. I think we are lacking in that area and if we are going to improve the accountability and the answerability equation, we need a higher standard of talent serving us and our needs.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in listening to the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), as I always am. I am intrigued by his feeling of outrage that many of us feel and which I think most Members of Parliament feel when we think the taxpayers' interests are not being well represented by agencies of the Crown, such as Crown corporations. I would like to say at this point that I think it is terribly outrageous. I know the Hon. Member's committee, the committee we share, the Public Accounts Committee, on which I cannot participate as much as I would like, but the committee of which I am chairman, the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, is looking very carefully and will be over the next couple of weeks at the question of Canadair. It is outrageous that every taxpayer in the country is being asked to invest up to $200 in a corporation which has not yet been able to show that it is a commercially viable operation. I think it is outrageous and I think we should look very carefully at it. I am sure over the next three weeks that we will.
It seems to me that there is another anomaly with regard to Crown corporations which we have to consider carefully. I am

Supply
referring to the fact that the management of Crown corporations does not suffer the same financial loss when the corporations are not profitable as the management of private corporations. Crown corporations can run a perpetual loss. For example, take the case of Canadair. Management salaries not only remained at high levels but continued to increase at a time when the corporation was losing literally hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars. I find that offensive and unacceptable. I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether he agrees with that position.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I agree totally with the Hon. Member. The only way as Members of Parliament we can do something about the outrage many of us feel is through improved accountability committees and by arming those committees with good research staff to allow us to dig in and open up, through a good process of disclosure, the many inequities and abuses which are partly human nature but also have no checks and balances. I plead with everyone in the House to start delivering some responsibility back to those people who elected us.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question for the Hon. Member. What would he think about the suggestion that the Auditor General be the chief adviser to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, or whatever audit committee the House might have, if that committee gained the authority and the staff necessary to go into the details of the audits of various Crown corporations and departments?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I would not be in favour of the Auditor General being the chief adviser to a parliamentary committee. He is a parliamentary officer with a huge mandate to perform. I think the committee would need a strengthened research centre with a very able research director who could call on the office of the Auditor General to provide areas of expertise needed for the wide variety of subject matter with which it would deal.
I think the office and staff of the Auditor General should be available to other committees for specialized problems, in addition to those committees being able to hire specialized expertise for special problems. I would not be in favour of the Auditor General being the chief adviser. He has to be held to account as well.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Hon. Member would care to indicate how far he feels Parliament should have authority over Crown corporations. I know he has been talking about the Auditor General's role and his accountability, but I am concerned, for example, about CN and its operations. If it intends to consolidate services, which could mean the consolidation of personnel and perhaps even the laying off of personnel, how much authority in the Hon. Member's mind should be exerted by Parliament in such a case? Or should we have any authority at all in that area?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, that being a policy matter, it would be dealt with strictly by the standing committee dealing
June 3, 1983
with that subject matter. That committee is presently the Standing Committee on Transport. It is a policy matter.
The accountability equation has to be dealt with in a non-political or an apolitical environment, and then we marry the two. In that way we could then get at the political matter of policy and the accountability equation could be brought into it in subcommittee meetings. I am personally against interfering with the productivity of Crown corporations by political pressure. That debate needs to be enlarged in inter-committee work and in inter-House debate.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before recognizing the Parliamentary Secretary, it is my duty to inform the House that the objection signed by the Hon. Members for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis), Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley), Ontario (Mr. Fennell), Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet), Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), Capilano (Mr. Huntington) and Leeds-Grenville (Mrs. Cossitt), has been filed with me pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Nova Scotia.
If the House agrees, I suggest we follow past practice and print the text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nowlan:
That this House rejects the Government's policies with respect to transportation, which have caused concern, chaos and confusion, as demonstrated by its loss of control over Crown corporations such as Air Canada, CN and Canadair and that the political preference, secrecy and negligence that it has shown in its dealings with such private concerns as Maislin, and condemns the Government for its failure to demonstrate fairness, accountability and leadership in its activity.
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, we have had Hon. Members from both the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party excusing themselves this afternoon because they had planes to catch. They stood up in the House to criticize Crown corporations, but I wonder which mode of transportation they are
June 3, 1983

using to return home today. Yes, they will be using Air Canada and will probably praise its efficiency.
First I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) for using Standing Order 62(11) to bring this topic before the House of Commons. It has allowed all three Parties to put forward their views. 1 always considered the Hon. Member to be a very fair Member of the House. I found him very fair in committee and in the Chamber, but 1 am sorry 1 cannot say that with respect to his motion.
Looking at the motion one would think the whole country is falling apart. He has lost points with me there. To save time I want to point out that there is a lot of control over Crown corporations; if anything, perhaps too much control. There is accountability and there is leadership. The Transport portfolio encompasses some 22 Crown corporations. They fall broadly into the two categories about which we talked this afternoon. The first category is commercial Crown corporations, such as CN, Air Canada, NTCL and Pilotage Authorities. The second category is comprised of commercially oriented Crown corporations which are dependent upon appropriations, such as VIA, Ports Canada and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority.
Despite a great deal of publicity surrounding Crown corporations in general and criticisms thereof by the Auditor General and others, by and large Transport Crown corporations work very well. I believe it is very fair to say that all Crown corporations serve the country well and that steps are constantly being taken by both the corporations and the Government to improve the operation of corporations, their structure and levels of service, to the over-all benefit of Canadians and at reasonable cost to taxpayers where appropriations are required.
The Government for its part has undertaken to improve the situation for both major Canadian railways, and in so doing for the shippers of a wide range of commodities, by proposing revisions to the Crow rate, which I will not get into now.
The Government has recently undertaken to streamline the operations of major ports by introducing a restructured ports organization under the Canada Post Corporation. One of my tasks when I was appointed Parliamentary Secretary was to monitor the Canada Ports Corporation Bill through committee and through the House. The Government introduced Bill C-153, formerly Bill C-123, to further enhance the efficiency of its approval powers for Crown corporation ventures and to enhance the accountability mechanisms available under the many constituent Acts of the corporations.
The corporations themselves are continually updating their managements and organizations to meet the demands of the time. Both CN and Air Canada experienced losses in 1982, as did many private corporations, and both CN and Air Canada have been undertaking adjustments which are intended to reflect today's realities and place them back in a profitable position. These adjustments have often had to be made despite severe opposition in the communities affected, and in some instances losses continue to be absorbed by the corporations as a social responsibility.
Supply
CN, for example, is rationalizing its money-losing express operations and consolidating its complimentary trucking operations. At the same time it continues to operate services for which it loses money, such as Terra Transport, as a social obligation. Air Canada is trimming its over-all capacity and has recently streamlined and pared its management organization. It continues to look for sources of cash such as sales or leases of aircraft currently surplus to its needs. It has recently received approval to reduce its shareholding in a subsidiary corporation at considerable profit.
At the same time Air Canada is also looking at ways in which its long-term cash flow can be improved. This sometimes requires upfront capital expenditures such as investment in a new headquarters building in Montreal which, though some claim to the contrary, represents the best deal for the company in both the short and long-term, and advancing of other expenditures such as the refurbishing of cargo aircraft to meet 1985 Canadian and American noise standards in 1984 instead of 1985.
Northern Transportation Company Limited continues to provide an excellent, reliable, safe and efficient service along the Mackenzie River system, in the Beaufort Sea and on the west coast of Hudson Bay and continues to make a profit. In 1983 it is also absorbing substantial losses at the request of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to continue to provide service at the Athabasca system.
The other Transport corporations continue to function well and largely without controversy, including the Ports Corporation and its 15 ports, the nine Harbour Commissions, the Seaway Authority, the Pilotage Authorities and the bridges.
The motion deals with the Government's loss of control over Crown corporations. Let me demonstrate, Mr. Speaker, that there is already a wide range of control mechanisms in place through general and specific statutes in force. Of overriding importance to all transportation companies, including Crown corporations, are general Acts such as the National Transportation Act, the Aeronautics Act, the Railway Act and the Canada Business Corporations Act. Still of the general nature but with application to Crown corporations alone rather than to all enterprises is the Financial Administration Act.
Finally, many Crown corporations are the creators of their own constituent Acts; examples within Transport Canada are the Air Canada Act, the Canadian National Railways Act, the Canada Ports Corporation Act, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act. The Financial Administration Act and, where applicable, the constituent Acts and the Canada Business Corporations Act contain many checks on the freedom of Crown corporations to act without prior Government knowledge and approval and many methods through which the activities of Crown corporations can be influenced or controlled by the federal Government.
It would be worth while to examine some of these control mechanisms in more detail in order to illustrate how they do in fact give the federal Government effective control over its

June 3, 1983
Supply
Crown corporations. Perhaps the most basic form of control is through the appointment of the chairman of the board, members of the board of directors and the president and chief executive officer. I was very pleased to hear the compliment paid by the Official Opposition to the Chief Executive Officer of Air Canada. The Air Canada Act and the Canadian National Railways Act specifically reserve these appointments to the Governor in Council. Even in the case of Canada Business Corporations Act Crown corporations, it is the practice of the federal Government to reserve appointments of chairmen and presidents for the Governor in Council. In all cases, Governor in Council appointments of the above nature are for a fixed term with provision made for extension at the Government's discretion. In addition, all such appointees can be removed for cause by the Governor in Council during their term of office. It works both ways.
As a means of exercising practical day to day monitoring of Crown corporation activities, there are frequent unofficial contacts between the Minister of Transport or his senior staff and the President of Air Canada, Canadian National, and other Crown corporations reporting through the Minister of Transport. This serves the Government both as a tool to sense changes in Crown corporation behaviour and financial performance and as an informal means to pass on the wishes of the responsible Minister to the chief executive officer.
The capital budget process is one of the most visible and effective means for the federal Government to control the activities of its Crown corporations. Through the Financial Administration Act, each self-sufficient Crown corporation is obliged to submit a full capital budget for Treasury Board review and Governor in Council approval. Financially dependent Crown corporations are obliged to submit not only a capital budget but also an operating budget. Both Air Canada and Canadian National submit capital budgets for approval through the Minister of Transport.
In submitting capital budgets, Crown corporations must satisfy the federal Government in terms of adequate detail regarding plans and proposed expenditures. The Government can insist on information for subsidiaries as well as for the parent corporation. For example, when Canadian National submitted its 1983 capital budget for approval late in 1982 the company provided, at the Government's request, financial information and planned expenditures broken out for subsidiaries as well as for the parent corporation.
The approval given by the Government to a capital budget is very specific; that is, the Crown corporation has very little latitude in terms of reallocating expenditures and has no authority to exceed the approved expenditure level. If the Crown corporation wishes to do either of these, it must approach the Government with a request for approval of a revised budget. Air Canada has recently done this.
A major control mechanism for the federal Government is the requirement that Crown corporations obtain Government approval before borrowing. Of course, this would include borrowing by the corporation from the Government, but the
Government also has full authority over Crown corporation borrowing from the private sector. The over-all borrowing plans for Crown corporations must be included in the annual capital budget, and are therefore subject to general Government approval. Specific borrowing within the ceilings established in the capital budget is also subject to subsequent approval.
All Crown corporations are required by the Financial Administration Act to submit an annual report which is tabled in Parliament as a public document. Air Canada and Canadian National have consistently met the strict deadlines for submission of annual reports outlined in the Act.
Under their respective Acts, both corporations' annual reports are automatically referred to committee where company officials frequently testify before the estimates as to how the companies have done recently. I would like to compliment all of the members of the Transport Committee for the effective way that they question these officials when they appear before the Transport Committee. I think this is a true sign of parliamentary control and parliamentary accountability.
While the federal Government believes that annual reports provide a good snapshot of corporate performance on an annual basis, it is felt that interim information is also needed to monitor performance adequately. For this reason the Financial Administration Act, Section 75(4), now states that:
A corporation shall make to the appropriate Minister such reports of its financial affairs as he requires.
This very broad authorization gives the Government full power to inquire into the financial affairs of Crown corporations and to take remedial action if required.
In order to ensure the protection of Parliament and the public as the ultimate shareholder of Crown corporations, the federal Government pays close and careful attention to the appointment of auditors. Accounting firms of unimpeachable reputation have been engaged for Air Canada and Canadian National to verify the books of account and records maintained in their support for both companies. The federal Government believes that the reports of these qualified professional auditors are an indispensable tool in monitoring the financial performance of its Crown corporations.
Ministers, their officials and the corporations themselves have been engaged for a year now in intensive study and discussions about the appropriate balance of policies and procedures needed to enable the Government to exercise its responsibilities while ensuring that these corporations are as free as possible to operate in a corporate milieu. Over this period a variety of structures and processes by which the federal Government can give direction to Crown corporations has been developed and modified in response to changing circumstances. In the Air Canada Act, there is a specific and clear provision for direction to the company. Section 8 states that the corporation shall in the exercise of its capacities and the carrying out of its activities, comply with direction of a general nature given to it by order of the Governor in Council.
June 3, 1983

I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are giving me the signal that my time is now up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being five o'clock, I do now leave the Chair. The House stands adjourned until eleven
Supply
o'clock Monday morning. May i wish Hon. Members a good weekend.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, June 6, 1983