1985-12-03

Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for abandoning the Canadian Aerospace Industry through the sale of de Havilland Aircraft Ltd. to the Boeing Corporation and for its consequent failure to protect the aerospace technology paid for by Canadian taxpayers and developed by de Havilland.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear from the announcement made yesterday by the Government that the present Conservative Government intends to pick up where the Diefen-baker Government left off, in terms of selling out Canada's aerospace industry. Canadian ownership ought to be a matter of vital concern in certain crucial sectors of the Canadian economy. The aerospace industry is one of those sectors.
The Canadian Government, which was determined to take us into the future, ought to be one that is putting more emphasis on Canadian ownership and Canadian control in such sectors. Instead of marching us into the future, the present Government is marching as fast as it can into the past. [Translation]
It is a sad day for the aerospace industry in this country and it is a sad day for Canada. We are selling a company in which Canadian taxpayers have invested millions of dollars, at a time when we are starting to reap the profits of our investment and should be starting to reap the benefits of sales of many Dash-7 and Dash-8 aircraft throughout the world. Thanks to the Conservatives, we are letting Boeing reap the benefits of Canadian investment. What lack of vision! What a ridiculous decision! What a typically Conservative decision!

There are two principal reasons that we in the New Democratic Party find this decision by the Conservative Government to be deeply contrary to the interests of Canada. The first of these pertains to the important matter of Canadian control in a crucial sector of our own economy. The second aspect of the decision is that even in terms of a business deal, in dollars and cents value, what the Conservatives are doing is a complete abomination. It will remind all Canadians of the incredibly inept way they made a decision last March in dealing with the
crisis in the banking industry. They are costing us millions and millions of dollars; that is the truth.
[DOT] (UIO)
I want to say something about the recent history of the de Havilland Corporation. As Canadians will know, it was originally a branch plant operation of Hawker Siddeley. During one part of its development, it indeed produced aircraft which had become known throughout the world, not simply in Canada, as a first-rate product. Of course I am referring to the Otter, the Twin Otter and the Beaver aircraft which are used not only in our own land but in many countries throughout the world. In the early 1970s, Hawker Siddeley for whatever reason-and it was not accidental that it was owned and controlled outside our borders-decided not to put the required investment into the Canadian branch plant which was necessary for the full development of the Dash-7 and other inter-urban commuter aircraft. Having made that decision, the Government of Canada was faced with the decision of having a modern industry go under or of coming in with capital to ensure proper development. At that time, the Government made the correct decision. It decided to put in what amounted to some $700 million over the years, to ensure the proper development of a modern or a series of modern first-rate aircraft.
The point I want to make about this is that this kind of capital investment makes a lot of sense in an industry of this kind. In my own small part of Canada where 1 was born, the area of Oshawa which I now have the honour to represent, the General Motors Corporation is putting in over $1 billion in the short run, in that little community alone, for a relatively few jobs to ensure longer range jobs.


Mr. Fennell:: They make money too.


John Edward Broadbent: I will deal with the point which I just heard from the Conservative side of the House in a moment and talk about the friends of the Conservatives, the Boeing Corporation. The key point I want to make is that if we are to have development in a modern industry, we have to put up the bucks. Since the parent firm, Hawker Siddeley, was not prepared to do that, we in Canada made the proper decision to use public funds for creative investment. Now, however, just at the point when we are about to have a return on that investment, just when the company has orders on its books for its remaining production in the coming year, what does the Government decide to do? Instead of taking advantage of the productive investment which has gone on in the past decade in this industry, instead of starting to sell airplanes around the world and bringing back a return to the public of Canada for

December 3, 1985
Supply
its investment, the Government which was elected just a year ago has decided to sell it off.


Mr. Rodriguez:: It is giving it away.


John Edward Broadbent: I hear one of my colleagues saying: "It is giving it away". I will document that in just a moment.
The key point I want to make in this part of my argument about the nature of this kind of industry is that every country around the world involved in the aerospace industry, without exception, uses public funds. Many countries in western Europe, whether it be France, Great Britain or Japan, use public funds in the form of public participation in the industry. In fact, there are some outright ownerships by Governments.
Let us look at the United States. I hope the Minister will deal with this argument. He is making much of the cost of $700 million and how the Canadian people will not be saddled with this kind of investment, according to the Conservatives. I did some checking of the Boeing Corporation in the United States. The Government says that the Boeing Corporation is a private firm which makes its way in the market-place.


An Hon. Member:: It is profitable.


John Edward Broadbent: One Conservative has just said: "It is profitable". There is a good reason for its being profitable. It is not the only reason, but it gets a lot of money from American taxpayers.
What corporation is at the top of the list of corporations in the United States which receive the most benefits from American taxpayers? Is it General Motors, IBM or any one of the other corporate giants outside the aerospace industry? Of course not. The company which receives the highest level of assistance from American taxpayers is none other than the Boeing Corporation. For the years 1981 and 1983, the Boeing Corporation received $400 million in the form of subsidies- and that is what they amount to-and special tax benefits from the American Government. It received $400 million in two years. At the same time it listed profits of $1.5 billion, but it did not pay one cent in income tax to the American people. That is another story about which many American citizens are concerned. The aerospace industry around the world, not just the Canadian industry, has been subsidized by taxpayers. However, there is only one Government in the modern world which is stupid enough not to recognize this necessity and is stupid enough to want to get rid of it in its own country, and that is the Conservative Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I ask the Minister who will be participating in this debate whether he thinks for a minute that the American people and the American Government would permit the Boeing corporation to be bought up by an enterprise or a country outside their own nation? I have just said that in two years the taxpayers of the United States put up the equivalent of $400 million Canadian for Boeing. If we look at the actual past two decades of the history of the Boeing Corporation and
the way in which it financed research and development in the aerospace industry in the United States, I know I understate the degree of subsidy when I say that it is in excess of $2 billion. That is what the Boeing Corporation has received in the past decade or so from American taxpayers.
The American flag will be very clearly waved on top of the American industry, and Americans will ensure that that happens. What is tragic is that we in Canada have a Conservative Government which, following its own past bad history of the Avro Arrow, is now taking down the Canadian flag from a Canadian corporation that is just about to take off and is wrapping itself as a Government in the Stars and Stripes. I think that is deplorable.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


John Edward Broadbent: Is it any wonder that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will be going down to Chicago tomorrow as the guest speaker of Time magazine? The next thing we know, the Prime Minister of Canada will be selected as Time magazine's man of the year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. St. Germain:: For good reason, because he is a great Canadian.


John Edward Broadbent: There they are, the new Conservatives on the other side of the House, publicly cheering a Prime Minister who has just sold out one of our major industries. I say to those Conservatives: "Some sense of perspective!"
Not only is it bad for its possible implications for the long-range development of high-technology jobs in Canada, it is also, if I can put it in a way that even the Conservatives will understand, a bad business deal in terms of dollars and cents.
I want the House to consider some of the details. Ostensibly, on paper, we are supposed to be getting $155 million. That is a giveaway even at that terribly low price, but I want to study the figures and see how much we will really be getting. Of the $155 million, the poor old Boeing Corporation is being asked to put up, $90 million is as a cash down payment, and it is to pay $65 million over time. We are allowing the Boeing Corporation to buy out a crucial Canadian company on time, the way Canadians buy cars or TV sets.
When we analyse the figures, Mr. Speaker, we find something that is deeply disturbing. If Boeing makes $325 million worth of purchases in Canada over the next 15 years it will be eligible for $65 million in benefits from the Canadian Government. I see the Minister nodding. He knows very well that given the potential of the Canadian aerospace industry, which is some 40,000 strong with 100 firms in the industry, there is not the slightest doubt that Boeing can make sufficient purchases to get $65 million back.
What about the remaining $90 million? Boeing will get back an estimated $30 million of the $90 million as a result of the Government's agreement to pick up new insurance costs as
December 3, 1985

well as assuming new costs for certain future potential liabilities for faulty aircraft. The Government has reached into the taxpayers' pocket again for this $30 million which it will provide in benefits to the Boeing Corporation.
As for the remaining $60 million of the original $90 million, Boeing will simply have to invest a certain amount for increased productive capacity in Canada to write off the cost of that eventually. As the Minister no doubt knows, if Boeing invests $115 million, as it plans to do, as a result of the Government's decision Boeing will be eligible for financial assistance under the Defence Industry Productivity Program of roughly $60 million.
It is therefore very clear, Mr. Speaker, that not only are we permitting Boeing to buy out a crucial Canadian industry but, due to the ineptness of the Government, Boeing is going to be able to buy out a Canadian industry with Canadian money. What a disgrace, Mr. Speaker. It is bad enough to drink Canada dry, but it is even worse for Canadians to have to put up the money. The Government deserves to be defeated on this matter as much as it does on anything it has done since it was elected.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. de Jong:: They call themselves businessmen.


John Edward Broadbent: My colleague will be adding further information which pertains to the Government's excuse for this abominable deal when he speaks.
I want to conclude very rapidly with three possible options from which the Government ought to have chosen from instead of taking the route that it has. The Government must recognize, as most other modern nations in the world that have maintained an aerospace industry have sensibly recognized, that the public sector is a very important way of doing this. The first option the Government should have seriously considered was to maintain this successful corporation, which had a $700 million investment in it, and to pursue international markets in order more rigorously pursue international markets to sell more DASH-7s and DASH-8s and other products in the future.
If the Government wanted de Havilland to have access to Boeing's international marketing network, why in heaven's name did it not go after a joint venture? Why could some deal not have been negotiated with Boeing? Boeing has negotiated deals with other countries. Why could we not have said that we will maintain this Crown corporation, we will maintain Canadian control and guarantee Canadian jobs, and have a joint arrangement with Boeing which involves some payment for access to Boeing's marketing capacity? That would have been another option which could have been exercised without losing Canadian control of this important industry.
The third option which could have been considered, if necessary, was more rigorous pursuit of a private Canadian owner. If the route of private ownership was to be chosen, a more systematic effort ought to have been made to get a Canadian owner to ensure that the industry would remain in
Supply
Canadian hands. It is certainly our clear understanding from the development position of this industry that, of all the options, it would probably have made the most sense to keep that corporation in the public sector. The public made the investment in it and ought now to be getting the benefit of that investment.
I want to conclude by observing that the Government was elected just over a year ago on the promise that it was going to take the country rapidly and more confidently into the future. In decision after decision since the Government was elected it has done just the opposite. Whatever transpires in the weeks and months ahead in terms of the Government's thinking, the New Democratic Party will remain committed to the future of the country, to the view that crucial industries ought to remain Canadian-owned, and to the view that public investment can make a lot of sense for the short run and the long run for the development of our nation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). I noticed that he said that the Boeing Corporation in the United States had received $400 million Canadian "in the form of subsidies because that's what they amount to". I think I have quoted him accurately. That is what caught my attention. I wonder if the Member could give us a breakdown of where that $400 million came from. Was it in the form of contracts or in the form of tax benefits? Could he enumerate that?


John Edward Broadbent: I would be very happy to get that data for the Hon. member. I can tell him that the general category is in fact all of the benefits and it is the equivalent of $400 million Canadian in the form of special tax concessions. For the Member's benefit, it came from an American source that was very critical of this use of American taxpayers' money. That aside, it was $400 million in special tax concessions, the final result of which was that Boeing, which had in excess of $1 billion in profit, ended up paying not a cent in taxes to the American Government.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the Member said they were special tax concessions. Were they different from any other tax concessions made to any other companies? In that way does the Member view this as a special subsidy to Boeing as distinct from any other companies?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that they were not special. I have no reason to believe that they were special to Boeing. They were special only in the sense that the ordinary taxpayer in the United States, like the ordinary taxpayer in Canada, simply is not eligible for these kinds of benefits. The key point I was making is that the Americans have taken care to ensure the development in the U.S. of a world-class firm in this very modern industry. They have used the money of the American taxpayers to do so. I would suggest to the Hon. Member that Boeing has received more from the American taxpayers on a comparative basis than de Havilland has received from the Canadian taxpayers. Having put up this

December 3, 1985
Supply
money, the Americans have enough sense to make sure that the industry will remain American controlled. The key point is that the Canadian Government should have enough sense to do the same thing for Canadians.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). It was over 20 years ago that the Conservative Government of that day, the last majority Conservative Government, decided to destroy the Avro Arrow program. I was a teenager at the time and I recall that happening. In the 20 odd years that have passed since then, most Canadians have agreed that that was a decision which destroyed the aerospace industry in Canada. We lost the research and we lost the lead that we had at that time. The situation was so bad that the Conservative Government destroyed the prototype of that particular airplane and cut it up into small pieces so that the Canadian industry could not benefit from the research for which the Canadian Government had paid.
Since this is a decision which not only affects the workers of today but the future of Canada for the next 20 or 30 years, should we not have a full discussion and committee investigation into the implications of this sale to the industry?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the quick answer to that question will not surprise the House. What may surprise the House is the fact that I did not have advance knowledge of the question. I say that honestly. What will not surprise the House is that I agree with the thought and wisdom behind the question, unlike that which I have been hearing from the other side of the House.


Mr. Crosby:: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), in his address to which I listened with great interest, referred to the Avro Arrow and the dismantling of that project. That matter was picked up by another member of his Party. I would like to ask the Leader of the New Democratic Party what he thinks of that project within the current framework of peace negotiations and the world concern for peace.
1 understand that the Avro Arrow was a weapon of war. That is to say, it was to be used in the National Defence program and had the capacity to carry bombs of great destructive capacity. Apart from the technology involved, and I understand the Hon. member's interest in that, is he interested in arming Canada more and involving it in the international defence industry? Does he want Canadians to participate in weapons of war and to build up and industry of national destruction, or does he want us to pursue peacefully industrial interests that employ people and keep Canadians in industries that will guarantee employment over this decade and future decades? Does he want us to engage again in the international arms race with weapons with a capacity for total destruction?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, Conservative Members certainly are the masters of the irrelevant question. I would say to the Hon. Member quite clearly that we happen to differ in
certain details of defence policy. That is the difference between a Government Party and an opposition Party. The New Democratic Party believes in a defence policy. We believe that, regrettably so, in a modern world we still need weapons. However, unlike certain other parts of the world-I will not make a polemical point about the Government. Not only do we believe in the defence of Canada, we also believe that we ought to be working simultaneously for disarmament in the world. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.


Mr. Minaker:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question with the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) regarding his position that the national Government should own Crown corporations. In the Province of Manitoba, the Minister responsible for Crown corporations went to The Netherlands last month in order to try to sell a Crown corporation called Llyer Industries. He made the statement before the Economic Committee of the Legislature that he would sell Llyer Industries and that if he could not sell it he would close it down. Who was with the Minister in The Netherlands but a union leader from Llyer Industries.
Has the Leader of the NDP been writing to Mr. Pawley to tell him not to close down Llyer Industries? Has the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) been writing to Mr. Pawley to tell him not to close down Llyer Industries? If they are not doing that, how can they rise in the House to make statements like the one the Hon. Member just made?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would make a couple of points in reply to the Hon. Member. I note that he said that a union member was being consulted and was part of what was going on. That is in complete and utter contrast to what the Conservative Government has done in this case. The Government did not have the thoughtfulness to consult the workers at all. If the Government of Manitoba is doing that, it is to be commended.
I hope the Hon. Member listened to my argument. I was not arguing that Crown corporations should never be sold back to the private sector. I never said such a thing. In fact, I gave as one of the options at which we should look the desirability of selling the firm to the private sector and making sure the taxpayers got a good deal, but I made the point that it should be sold to the Canadian private sector and remain Canadian owned.
Third, in my judgment-and I am not an expert but I have seen the experiences elsewhere in the world-regarding whether certain sectors ought to be privately or publicly owned, world experience seems to suggest that public ownership in this sector which massively involves taxpayers' money probably makes sense. It is a question of detail. We are unequivocally clear that this industry ought to remain Canadian owned. We think that on balance it ought to remain in the public sector but we have not closed the door to having it sold to a Canadian firm. If the Manitoba Government in its wisdom-I'm not there, I'm not from that province and I do not know the details-happens to believe that that particular Crown corpo-
December 3, 1985

ration would be more viable and effective for the people of Manitoba in the private sector, that could well be the perfectly sensible solution.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government announced that the de Havilland Corporation, which is located in Downsview which is in my riding, was to be sold to the Boeing Corporation and that a 90-day long memorandum of intent had been signed for that purpose. I would like to indicate, as have commentators all across the country overnight, that this is a tragedy of the order of the one committed by a former Conservative Government which closed down the production of the Avro Arrow, putting something like 15,000 people out of work. This is not a decision that will put 15,000 people out of work as did the Avro-Arrow decision, and I will speak of that in a moment. I will not criticize Boeing although I will say something about it. However, I would like to assure the House and Canadian people that this is no less a tragedy, the consequences being the diminution of the economy of the country, the reduction of Canadian sovereignty and the subtraction from the Canadian identity, which are as serious as those of the tragic closing down of the Avro Arrow.
The de Havilland Corporation is a company located in my riding which uses suppliers from virtually every province in the country. All Canadians are a part of it and apart from their physical, technological and working contributions, it is a part of the Canadian identity. This is the company which made the Twin Otter and the Beaver. This is the company which made the Mosquito. These are a line of planes which particularly define the Canadian way of approaching aerospace, something which the company has been doing over the decades. The idea that this company will become a division of a multinational firm, however good that firm is, has closed the door on the future for all Canadians.
I said that I wished to talk about Boeing for a moment. Boeing is a good company. It is a good multinational corporation. Boeing manufactures the most successful passenger and cargo jet airplanes in the world. It has sold more of certain of its lines, more copies of some of its planes, than other planes which have been produced in the world. This is to Boeing's credit, and I do not want to criticize the company. However, in this connection I wish to point out that it seems to have adapted well to doing business in Canada. One of its first acts following the election of the Conservative Government was to engage as its public relations firm the firm of Advance Planning. Advance Planning is a subsidiary of Camp and Associates which was set up at the time of the Government's coming to power. Camp and Associates is a Canadian company whose identity with the Conservative Party is well known. If anything, one could give credit to Boeing for understanding how the new Government operates. Boeing put itself in the ballpark through the use of a public relations firm which is known and friendly to the Government.
1 also wish to point out that it must be helpful for Boeing to establish a base in Canada which is larger than the base it had
Supply
in the past. After all, with the whole future of jobs at de Havilland at stake, from now on if this deal goes through- and I hope it will not-Boeing will be in a position months and years from now to remind the Government that it is the owner of this large enterprise in Toronto. Boeing will be able to remind the Government that de Havilland is a division of its company and that if Air Canada is looking for other types of airplanes made by other companies, or if the Department of National Defence is in the same position, then Boeing may also remind the Government that it is the company keeping jobs at de Havilland in Toronto. That is the regrettable fact of this acquisition by Boeing. Again, I make no criticism of Boeing because of that possibility. However, it does show that the Government has given Boeing a hostage for future performances which will be favourable to it.
1 indicated that this acquisition is a tragedy of a diffrent order when compared to the loss of 15,000 jobs. Ironically, I am positive that at least in the foreseeable future there will be big increases in terms of employment at the Downsview air base. When I was there yesterday for the announcement by management I learned that 34 new employees were taken on just yesterday. I learned that 50 employees were taken on that day. I learned that 1,000 have been taken on over the last year. The reason for this is not the sale which was announced yesterday. The reason is that de Havilland has finally reached the stage where its Dash-8 is ready to take off.
The taxpayers of Canada brought this company through the worst recession since the 1930s, that is, from 1981 until today. It was brought through that recession with a good workforce, with all its research capacity intact, with all its management in place and with products for which orders are finally starting to roll in large numbers. In order to justify the development costs there needs to be 400 sales of the Dash-8. As a result of the planes and as a result of the confidence which Canadians had in the company over the years, and not as a result of anything the Government or Boeing has done, de Havilland is now in a position where it has nearly 200 sales. I also learned yesterday that the Twin Otter, which has been out of production for a few years, is being brought back into production in a new modernized version adapted to today's requirements. 1 also learned yesterday that the production of the Dash-7 will be speeded up as well. I learned that the Dash-7 Stretch is now considered to be more viable, and while it is still on the drawing boards it has been given a great boost.
So there will be jobs created over the next few months. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) cannot get up, nor can the Government, in the months ahead and say these results are because of the takeover. It is because of the products. It is because of the confidence which Canadians have had in the company over the last few years.
The company will now be owned by an American corporation if the deal goes through. 1 have already indicated that Boeing is a good company. Hawker Siddeley was a good company too. It owned de Havilland until 1974. I would like to remind the Government of the reason the company was taken over by the former Liberal Government from Hawker Sidde-

December 3, 1985
Supply
ley. It was not taken over because the former Government was fanatically committed to state ownership. It was taken over because the Hawker Siddeley multinational corporation had more important priorities than the products which were being created at de Havilland in Downsview. Hawker Siddeley had other planes which it was making in the United Kingdom, just as Boeing has other planes it is making in the United States. At a certain point in time Hawker Siddeledy decided it was not prepared to take its shareholders' investment and capital and invest it in Canada in the research which had been done in terms of the continuation of the STOL lines. That is not an improper decision for a multinational corporation to take. I think it was wrong. Hawker Siddeley should have stuck with the STOL aircraft which de Havilland had designed and begun to produce. However, when it did not do so, the former Government moved in and took the company over.
Now that we are realizing the privatization dream of the new Conservative Government, and since this company will become a division of the Boeing Aircraft Corporation, how can it be denied that the greater priorities of the multinational corporation will not prevail? How can this be done when, in Seattle, where Boeing sells its planes, it sells one which costs more than the whole purchase price of de Havilland Aircraft? When capital is short and when de Havilland needed good managers and wanted good research people, which they find here in Canada, please do not kid us, Government, and tell us that Boeing will not come to Canada and draw on the strengths of de Havilland for its multinational purposes. That would be the normal thing for a multinational corporation to do and we will suffer for it.
I remind the Government that de Havilland accounts for 25 per cent of the aerospace industry in Canada. The act which was announced yesterday-yesterday's tragedy-takes the company out of the control of Canadians and puts it into the control of a company with large scale priorities when, someday soon, like Hawker Siddeley, it just might decide that de Havilland is less important to it than its other affairs in the United States.
What have we lost? The autonomy of the company has been diminished. It was its autonomy which permitted the design of these airplanes in the first place. Canadian identity is lessened since we are proud of these planes, as we have a right to be. The taxpayers of Canada have paid large sums of money to keep this company going and to keep its products going. It is no longer part of the Canadian identity. Canadian sovereignty is reduced as a result of the sale announced yesterday by the Government. That is the tragedy.
When he spoke the Leader of the New Democratic Party reminded us that he comes from Oshawa. I was thinking about that while he was speaking. Back in the 1920s, the McLaughlin Automobile Company, the last major Canadian automotive company, was sold to a multinational firm. But jobs did not go down, jobs went up. There are more people working in Canada in the automotive industry now than were working in that industry when McLaughlin owned that company. When I said that our sovereignty and identity were diminished, what I was
getting at was that when that last company was sold-not by the Government but by the owners-Canadians lost the opportunity to express themselves through the economy, the opportunity to create products which would have responded to our situation and not to the situation of our powerful neighbours to the south.
Would the Canadian automobile have been a Volkswagon, a Rolls-Royce, a Volvo? I do not know the answers to that question. And, starting today, we will never know what Canada might have contributed to the world in aerospace. We made a pretty good start; the Twin-Otter, the Dash 7 and the Dash 8. These are pretty good expressions of Canada's way of dealing with aerospace in the world today. But we will not know from now on how Canadian identity would have developed in this sector because this Government does not see the difference between a Canadian owner and a foreign owner.
I agree with a lot of things the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) said today, but David Lewis once said in this House, before his Party became excited about economic sovereignty: "There is no differnece between a Canadian capitalist and an American capitalist. They both want to be as efficient as possible and to make as much money as possible". My Party has never left it at that. We think there is a difference between Canadian ownership and foreign ownership.
While we feel that this is not the moment to sell, we do feel that if it is going to privatize-and 1 am going to come to the Canadian option in a moment-why not find a Canadian solution? Why not keep an election promise? During the last election campaign the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson)-and he is not here in the House today-promised on behalf of his Party that there would be a national aerospace company. He promised that de Havilland and Canadair would be put together, that they would be made viable by converting liabilities to paid in or contributed surplus, and so on, and shares would be offered to the Canadian people. That promise looked pretty good for the Canadian people, but we have heard nothing about it. What has happened? Why is it not still a good idea to take the company and put it together with Canadair, make a Canadian company and allow the Canadian people to express their confidence in the aerospace industry by taking a risk as investors in the future of a corporation like that?
Why is the Government not doing that? There is no explanation. The Government has made the announcement, after secret negotiations into which it would not even bring the management of the company 100 per cent, nor would it bring in the United Auto Workers, not to mention an interested Canadian bidder. In secret the Government has made a deal and has produced a memorandum of agreement which it has not shown us and which I am asking today that it make public so that during this 90 day period-if it is such a good deal- we can have a look at it.
I would like to say a few words about the price, and my colleagues will speak about that as well. It is obvious that the
December 3, 1985

price puts no value at all on the product lines and on all of the development costs which the company wrote off, thanks to the taxpayers of Canada. These are being handed over to the Boeing Corporation for free. But even if the price were much higher, I cannot see the justification for this sale because the Canadian Government is going to continue to stand behind these aircraft and this company. From what we have heard the Government say, it will continue to support it like it supports every other high-tech company in Canada, and it is going to do more than the Export Development Corporation usually does to help foreign sales. Boeing, apparently, has been able to negotiate that. The Government is going to continue to insure all of the aircraft which have been produced by the company. That is a very big ticket cost. Therefore, Boeing is taking money out of one pocket and handing it to the Canadian Government-not enough as far as I am concerned-but even if it were more, the Canadian Government is still taking a lot of our money and putting it into the other pocket of Boeing to encourage that company to buy us out, to take over de Havilland.
I would like to tell the Government that it has to come up with something beyond financial consideration and beyond taking a load off its agenda in order to justify this sale.
What 1 think, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government is desperate to validate the promise it made that it would privatize companies. It has looked around and has not been able to sell anything. It is desperate and it has sold this company. I want to ask why the Government has not given the Rimgate group, a Canadian-based group, all of the information Boeing was given so that that group could make a sensible offer for the company? 1 have spoken to the Rimgate group. It has given me chapter and verse on the things it has not been told which have been told to the Boeing group.

Unlike Boeing, the Rimgate Group was not given details of the performance of this company. No promises were made regarding further investments to be made by the Government. I would like to ask the Government, during this 90-day period, to give Rimgate the same information and the same opportunity to make an offer as Boeing was given.

The final point I would like to make-and I have a motion to introduce which amends the motion before the House-is to remind the Government that back on December 11, 1984, I asked the Government whether or not, if this company was going to be sold, a parliamentary committee could review the deal before it was made. The answer 1 received from the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) is found at page 1108 of Hansard. Although he waffled on his answer to my supplementary question, he said very clearly, when I asked if Investment Canada could review this deal, and I quote:
Surely to suggest that Investment Canada should have a review, in addition to the cabinet review and that which would take place in the House, is totally unnecessary.
Supply
Therefore, we received a commitment on the record of this House from the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion that there would be a review by this House. 1 call upon the Government to honour that commitment and to let us have that review.
I, therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That the motion be amended by deleting the period at the end of the sentence and adding the following:
"And further condemns the Government's lack of confidence in the capacity
of Canadians to maintain the country's sovereignty in the aerospace industry".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 would like to reserve my decision on this motion. Questions and comments?


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to compliment the Hon. Member on his speech. It was a thoughtful commentary on what we believe is a great tragedy for Canadian high-tech and aerospace research and development. As he spoke I thought of the special qualities of the Twin Otter aircraft and how it has been used in the Arctic. I do not know how many Members have had an opportunity to fly in that aircraft, especially around the eastern Arctic where there are small runways, 600 feet or 1,200 feet in length. The Twin Otter is specially designed to land and take off on those kinds of runways. The Twin Otter, and to some extent the Dash-7 and Dash-8, are specially designed for the northern regions of Canada, and I would be interested in knowing whether the Hon. Member sees the Boeing Company maintaining an interest in providing the kind of aircraft which are specially designed for Canada. These aircraft are being used all around the world, but they were initially designed for bush work and fire-fighting in northern Canada, flying in and out of small airstrips all over the North, especially the eastern Arctic.
The Hon. Member has obviously done a lot of research on this subject. He has attended briefings and meetings with workers in the de Havilland plant. The Government put some $700 million into this company to develop new aircraft, expand plant capacity and develop a world-wide sales capacity as well. 1 would be interested in knowing if he has an explanation as to why the Government would sell this corporation for a net amount of $90 million, which is about the price of one 747? Why such a bargain basement price considering its potential for sales world-wide?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would like to thank my colleague for the question. Indeed, STOL planes are a unique Canadian product. The fact that they were developed here in Canada does not mean that they end here. The Hon. Member is right, these planes are found all over the world. Developing countries, and even advanced countries, find that Canadian technology and products suit their needs. Rolls Royces are an expression of a certain British identity and you find them all around the world, just as you find Volkswagons as well. What is regrettable here is that, starting yesterday, these planes will no longer be a unique expression of Canadian identity.

December 3, 1985
Supply
In answer to his question about whether Boeing will continue this development, I want to comment on something the Leader of the NDP said as well. He proposed, instead of selling the company to Boeing, why not have a joint venture? He will be interested to know that there is in effect already a joint venture between de Havilland and Boeing. Ever since 1968 or 1969 they have been involved in joint research in the area of STOL aircraft. These two companies have been co-operating for many, many years. Boeing believes that STOL deserves support and they may well continue the program. However, as I mentioned before, they have other fish to fry and they may well not do so.
One current project under way concerns the augmentor wing. I do not want to take a lot of the time of the House now, but this type of wing assists the plane in gaining altitude quite rapidly. However, there is a trade-off, that of slower horizontal flight. The augmentor wing is designed to thicken the wing during take-off and reduce it during flight.
I just cannot understand what the Government is doing in this case. Let me put it in the form of a question. What on earth is it that Boeing is giving to this venture? The money does not amount to much, although it is a large sum compared to the continued responsibility of the Canadian Government. Boeing is not transferring technology, because that has been under way for some time. Is the Government saying that Canadians are not capable of marketing this plane? Is the Government saying Canadians are not capable of advancing the technology involved? Is it saying that Canadian capital would not be available? If so, I urge the Government to look at what the Rimgate group was prepared to offer. Give that company a chance to do something if the Government is getting cold feet in carrying the responsibility itself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Having considered the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) a moment ago, the Chair finds it to be in order.
There are still 30 seconds left in the question and comment period.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, Canada has provided in excess of $700 million to de Havilland over the years. Would the Hon. Member please comment on the sale price of $90 million in cash and $65 million by way of a note, which some individuals have described as cherry-picking of Crown corporations by the Boeing Corporation.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Very briefly, we need to see the memorandum of agreement. All we know is what the press release says. That shows a disastrously poor deal for the Canadian taxpayers. We must be given the original documents to draw our own conclusions. The Government promised, through the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, that we would be given an opportunity to examine these documents.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Government in the debate today, and I have no hesitation in stating that the motion presented by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) is unfounded and entirely without substance.
Contrary to what the motion says, instead of abandoning the aerospace industry in this country, the Government, in taking the step announced yesterday, has expressed its confidence in the future of an industry that is very important to this country. By proposing the sale of de Havilland Aircraft Ltd. to Boeing, an internationally known company, a company that is financially and managerially sound, a company that has a thorough knowledge of the industry throughout the world, by agreeing to this merger, the Government is providing Canadian industry with a far greater potential for participation in international markets.
This Government fully recognizes the importance of the aerospace industry to Canada. Judging by the wording of the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) I wonder whether he has any real understanding or recognition of the true significance of that industry.
In his motion he seems to characterize the aerospace industry as consisting solely of de Havilland. While de Havilland is very obviously an important company and will be even more important in the future as a result of the Government's creative move announced yesterday, we should not lose sight of the fact that 45,000 Canadians are employed in the aerospace industry that is made up of more than 100 companies from coast to coast.
We are proud of the performance of workers, of engineers and of the management of de Havilland who have built for that company a world-wide reputation in the manufacture of commuter aircraft. For the Leader of the New Democratic Party to ignore and neglect the contribution of other elements of the industry, an oversight of which he is clearly guilty when one looks at his motion accusing the Government of "abandoning the aerospace industry", I wonder if he would like to go with me to visit these other fine companies and tell them and their workers that in his eyes they just do not rate as vital components of the Canadian aerospace industry.
Let him tell that to the workers of Canadair in Montreal, the workers of Boeing in Winnipeg and Arnprior, the workers of Pratt and Whitney, the workers of McDonnell-Douglas, the workers of CAE, Spar Aerospace and Fleet Aerospace or the relative newcomers to Canada like British Aerospace or the many other companies that contribute to the human and financial resources and the advancement of this industry.
December 3, 1985



Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this Government is well aware of its commitment to all sectors of the Canadian aerospace industry. We are not only respecting these commitments, we are doing more than that by ensuring greater viability for an industry that is so important to the high technology sector in Canada.

The Leader of the New Democratic Party makes two unfounded and unsupported allegations in his motion. Allow me to deal with both of them and I will refute them totally and completely. First, he accuses us of abandoning the Canadian aerospace industry through the privatization of de Havilland and the sale to Boeing. Second, he accuses us of failing to protect aerospace technology paid for by the Canadian taxpayers and developed by de Havilland.
I have already shown that the Hon. Member has no grasp or understanding of the breadth of the Canadian aerospace industry. Now I will show that far from abandoning the Canadian aerospace industry we have taken the only sensible and realistic course; to bring to an end at de Havilland a decade of increasing financial losses paid for by the taxpayers. These losses, if allowed to continue, could lead only to the ultimate and final wind-up of the company and the loss of the existing jobs.
It should be evident, even to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, that de Havilland was at a critical point. Despite strong products and the dedication of its employees, new product development and new investment and even a new direction were urgently required.
de Havilland's traditional private line, which stood the company in good stead in the past, needed updating. Sales of the Dash-7 peaked at 107, with only a handful of additional orders on the books. While the company had received approximately 117 orders and options for the Dash-8, only 13 had been delivered to date.
de Havilland's losses for the first nine months of this year stood at $55 million on top of losses of $76 million last year before a special tax credit. To date, the federal Government committed more than $834 million of public funds to the company. If we were to continue to keep the company in the public sector, further substantial tax moneys would be required, to our best estimate probably some $200 million for next year alone in new capital investment and to cover ongoing operating losses.
The Government faced these choices: continuing to allow the company to absorb hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars every year; closing it down completely at a further cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, not to mention the loss of jobs and the terrible social and economic impact that such a closure would have; or finding a buyer in the private sector with the financial clout, the commitment, the ability, the energy and know how to ensure that de Havilland would remain a company that would prosper and have an open door to the market of commuter airlines throughout the world.
Supply
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, 1 can assure you that the Government is entirely aware of the significant investment of taxpayers' money in de Havilland. And to protect that investment in Canada's aerospace technology, the Government has negotiated with Boeing a world product mandate for de Havilland, including not only the Dash-7 and the Dash-8 but all products that may derive therefrom.

Anyone who was at the news conference yesterday heard Mr. Albrecht, Chairman of the Board of Boeing Canada, publicly commit his company to proceed with a Stretch version of the Dash-8. That is an investment that will no doubt involve sums in the magnitude of several hundred million dollars. It will mean more jobs at de Havilland and more jobs at the hundreds of suppliers across Canada who serve de Havilland. That is how we are protecting the Canadian aerospace industry. That is how we are protecting Canadian technology. That is how we are protecting existing jobs and making sure that we will be creating more jobs in this industry as we have done throughout the country in the last 15 months.
We have made it clear through the privatization process to which the Government is committed that privatization will strengthen the ability of our commercially oriented Crown corporations to compete in the market-place.
We on this side of the House recognize the reality of the market-place. We recognize that by reducing the bureaucratic and political impediments, there will be a more effective allocation of resources in a more efficient market economy. Above all, we recognize that through privatization we can enassure that the maximum benefits flow to Canadians in terms of jobs and new investment while reducing as far as possible the risks and exposure that taxpayers may face in supporting some of these industries.
In the case of de Havilland, I have reported that the Government contacted more than 130 prospective buyers. After a year of intensive efforts, three offers to purchase were received and studied carefully. In selecting Boeing, I would like to stress that not only did we select the company that made the best offer, we also selected a company with an outstanding and proven track record as a good corporate citizen of Canada. Boeing's relationship with this country goes back some 66 years. Throughout that period of time, Boeing has always behaved itself as we would expect any upstanding true Canadian corporation to behave.
The letter of intent setting out the basis for the sale of de Havilland to Boeing has many important features. It includes undertakings that will keep de Havilland in Ontario, that will require Boeing to pay royalties to Canada on existing products and assign to de Havilland a world product mandate, to develop new activities at de Havilland and work with Canadian suppliers across the country. All these features are designed to ensure the further development of the Canadian aerospace industry, not its abandonment.
9062

December 3, 1985
Supply
This initiative both secures the future of de Havilland and marks a major step for the Canadian aerospace industry, a $4 billion industry which is already the fifth largest in the industrial world.
In brief, we have reached a successful conclusion to our year-long quest to re-establish de Havilland in the private sector under ownership which has an impeccable record in the aerospace industry. The Boeing Company, by its financial and marketing commitment to de Havilland, demonstrates more faith in the future of Canada than does the mover of this motion. If the purchase of de Havilland turns out to be a good deal for Boeing shareholders-and I sincerely trust that it will-it will also turn out to be a good deal for Canada, de Havilland will be a good deal for its shareholders only when it is profitable. That will be a good deal for the taxpayers of Canada because for the first time they will begin to receive reimbursement through the taxes which a profitable de Havilland will be paying for all the support given it over the past decade.
Far from abandoning the aerospace industry, the Government is strengthening that vital industry. Far from failing to protect Canadian aerospace technology, the Government is ensuring that de Havilland technology will enjoy a wider window on the markets of the world.
The privatization of de Havilland sends a strong message that the Government is determined to remove the shadows which have bound significant portions of Canada's industrial economy. Through our privatization program, we will be able to allow organizations, which were once restricted to government control, to build their own futures in ways that will benefit both their employees and the investors who demonstrate, by their financial commitment, their confidence in the future of our great country.
In conclusion, let me repeat that the motion put forward by the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party and amended by the Hon. Member of the Liberal Party is without foundation. It is hardly deserving of the attention of the House. I know that it will be relegated to the obscurity it so richly deserves.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board about the commitment made during the election campaign by the present Minister of Finance that the de Havilland Corporation and Canadair would be put together into a national aerospace company, and that shares of that company would be offered for subscription directly to Canadian people. Why did the Government turn its back on that commitment? If it did not, what effort did it make before abandoning it to try to deliver on that promise?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the process of privatization, in the first step, the line Ministers responsible for various Crown corporations evaluate each of their respective Crown corporations to see whether or not they fit the definition which we use for candidacy for privatization, in other words, is the company commercial, and does the company effectively no longer fulfil a public policy purpose? The company is also evaluated from a financial point of view. It is proposed to the task force and, if it is accepted, the second stage of the process is an in-depth evaluation of the prospects of that company and the resolution of financial and policy issues which can arise during the privatization process. Only after that first stage is the company really put up for sale, bids are entertained, analyses of the bids are made and finally the commitment for sale is made.
We followed this process in this case, as we did in the other cases which we have announced to date. It was felt that in terms of ensuring a vigorous and vibrant aerospace industry in the country, the best way to go was the sale of de Havilland to the Boeing Corporation.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in other words, no consideration at all was given by the Government to the promise made during the election campaign. I heard from the Hon. Minister that they gave no attention at all to that promise. They started from scratch, just as if no promise had been made.
The Minister indicated a bright future for de Havilland. I hope he is right. Has the Government done any calculation in that bright future of the production and development of Stretch Dash-8? If things go as well as he suggested they might for the company, how much money will the Canadian Government put into it, in all the various ways the Government supports industrial activity in the country?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the company will be eligible for the various programs for which all other companies in that industry, or for that matter in other industries, are eligible. I am sure that in the development of the company we will be looking at requests under existing programs for government assistance of the same nature, on the same footing and of the same conditions as any other Canadian corporate entity could request.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister. He referred to the fact that he anticipated de Havilland would be paying taxes. Could he name a single major producer of aircraft anywhere in the world, in terms of net, which is paying taxes to its Government? In that context, was he aware that the Boeing Corporation, in the last two years for which data was available, in spite of a book profit of $1.5 billion, did not pay a cent in income tax because of the tax structure for this kind of industry in the United States, and in fact received in that period of time $400 million in assistance from the American Government in tax policy? Is he aware of those facts?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly aware of the balance sheet and of the profit and loss statement of the Boeing Corporation. Obviously, when one concludes as important a transaction as this one, it is only prudent management for the seller to ensure that the purchaser is enjoying fine
December 3, 1985

financial health. 1 can only reassure the Hon. Member that such is the case; Boeing is in fact a financially very strong and healthy corporation. I would like to be able to say the same for de Havilland. At the moment it is not. We firmly believe that with this deal,with this transaction and with the existing financial strength of Boeing, we will see within a short period of time a company in Canada, in Ontario, in Downsview, which will also have an interesting profit and loss statement.
There is no question. Boeing would not buy this corporation if it thought it would lose money forever. It intends to make money with that company. It intends to make profits. When it makes profits, it will pay taxes under our tax structure.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister clearly missed the point or chose not to deal with it. The point I was making was that because of the tax structures of different countries, including the United States of America, these corporations end up not paying taxes at all in that they are subsidized one way or another by taxpayers. All the Minister has done is use Canadian taxpayers' money to put over $800 million, according to the updated figures which the Minister gave the House today, into this company. That has already gone from Canadian taxpayers. What Boeing is getting is a gift of a couple of aircraft, and we paid for the development of them. Boeing will build on that. Given the structure which the Government is about to set up for the corporation, it will make lots of profit in Canada because all the costs have already been written off by Canadian taxpayers.
I have another question for the Minister. I know he is ultimately interested in-and I do not say it facetiously-a factual presentation; we can have a dispute about the policy. However, earlier he alluded to my equating the aerospace industry in Canada with the existing facilities at de Havilland. Would he acknowledge that in my speech and in reply to questions therafter, even before he spoke, I talked about the more than 100 firms in this industry in Canada and also the fact that there were some 40,000 people already employed; in short, that I did not ignore other companies in this sector?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I will acknowledge that in his questions the Hon. Member did allude to the fact that there are some 40,000 people employed in the aerospace industry in the country. I am happy that he acknowledged that. It is an important industry which we would like to have grow and prosper in the country. We feel that the move we announced yesterday is a move in that direction which will ensure that, rather than declining, the number of employees will grow over the years to come.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask about the Fokker company in particular, a Dutch manufacturer. The Minister said that 130 companies were canvassed to see if they would be interested in taking de Havilland off the Government's hands. One of the companies was Fokker. Yet, when Fokker appeared again as part of a Canadian bidding group, I understand that the CD1C refused to give details to the group because Fokker
Supply
was part of it, although it would have been prepared to give Fokker information directly. Does the Minister understand, as I do, that the Canadian bidding group was not given full information because of something to do with the presence of Fokker, which makes a somewhat similar airplane, and yet the Government was prepared to tell all to de Havilland when it was one of the 130 companies with no Canadian involvement at all?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make something very clear. From the phrasing of the Hon. Member's question, it is obvious that there is a misunderstanding in his mind. In this transaction, as in any transaction to come, we would never divulge to a direct competitor information that deals directly with the product against which he is competing.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Why did you approach Fokker in the first place?


Robert René de Cotret: We would not have given that part of the information to Fokker.
With regard to the second question, the group in which Fokker was involved got all the co-operation it could possibly request from the CDIC. The only exception was some specific product information which could have been used in a competitive environment to the detriment of de Havilland. I repeat that that kind of information would not be made available to a prospective buyer of any of the Crown corporations which we contemplate selling over the months and years to come.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) mentioned that Advance Planning, part of Camp and Associates in Toronto, was the public relations firm for Boeing. Could the Minister outline what part they played in the negotiations and whether they were paid on a commission basis? It seems that Boeing has paid an incredibly low price. If the Minister feels that he has, as he indicated today, made such a great sale, would he be willing to put the issue before Parliament within 90 days for the approval of the House?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, in response to the first question, I am not aware of the specifics of the relationship the Hon. Member alluded to. I will be happy to try to get the information for him, but I do not have it with me.
In response to the second question, the final details of the transaction will be worked out in the coming weeks and will be announced in due course in the proper forum when they are completed.


John Edward Broadbent: In Parliament?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now terminated. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) on debate.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the comments of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) who said that the motion of the

December 3, 1985
Supply
New Democratic Party was without substance. 1 was interested in that because in the debate which took place in the Ontario Legislature yesterday the Minister's political comrade, Larry Grossman, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, said quite specifically that David Peterson had not done enough to keep the plant in Canadian hands. He quite clearly took the view that Ontario should have been doing more and I presume that he meant that his federal colleagues should have been doing more as well. Perhaps there is a division on the Conservative side, but it seems to me that Mr. Grossman feels that the concerns reflected in my Party-about this deal have some substance.
I note as well that when the Dash-8 was first rolled out, Bill Davis, then the Premier of Ontario, said that de Havilland must continue to be part of the economic life of this great country. I am sure that he meant it should remain in Canadian hands. In fact, that is quite specifically what his successor, Frank Miller, promised. During his term as leader he suggested that Ontario should buy de Havilland if that was necessary to prevent de Havilland from leaving Canada or being sold out from Canadian ownership.
I would like to talk about the issues raised by this sell-out at bargain basement prices. It echoes the Conservative's destruction of the Avro Arrow 25 years ago. I believe that many years from now people will look back on this week as a dark, dark week in the history of Canada because one of the leading companies in the Canadian aerospace industry went out of Canadian hands. Of course, there are 100 or more part suppliers in the industry but they will not be able to continue to work effectively if we take away the few companies which are in fact assembling final products or assembling and designing aircraft. De Havilland was the only Canadian company which was able to conceive, design, implement, and bring to market a completely Canadian-designed aircraft. The Dash-7, the Dash-8, and the others which have been mentioned are fine examples.
Canadair has been responsible for production of the CF-18 but that is a plane designed in the United States for which the components are largely made in the United States as well. Canadair has the Challenger jet on the market, but that, too, is a product of U.S. technology and U.S. know how which was brought in by Canadair. de Havilland is our only distinctively Canadian company with distinctive competence in the aircraft industry, and now it is being sold to Boeing.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Government's defence of this particular deal is weak and that a lot of questions have been raised. If the Government were to come clean and provide us with all the information, we might be able, even now, to point to other directions which could have been taken rather than selling de Havilland to Boeing at bargain sale prices.
I will put this into terms which people may be able to understand a bit better. The price of a Dash-8 is about $6 million American or about $8 million Canadian. Boeing is buying the de Havilland Corporation for $90 million Canadian, which is equivalent to the price of about 11 Dash-8s or
about six months production. That is how cheaply Boeing is getting de Havilland. It is quite clear that the $65 million deferred note to which Boeing is committing itself can and will be worked out by means of a modest 16 per cent increase in its current volume of purchases in Canada, according to the information that we have been given. Therefore, Boeing gets the company for next to nothing.
What else does Boeing get? The President of the Treasury Board did not talk about the other ways in which the Canadian taxpayer will continue to be committed to subsidizing de Havilland while it is in American hands. We are giving Boeing a $400 million or $500 million tax write-off due to tax losses of de Havilland over the course of the last three or four years. Those tax losses are like money in the bank, Mr. Speaker. They guarantee that, if de Havilland has profits, it will not have to pay a nickel in Canadian tax for the next 15 or 20 years. Although I am not quite clear on this because the details have not been given to us, those tax write-offs may well be transferred by Boeing to its other Canadian operations. It is clear, however, that those tax write-offs will have the effect of saving Boeing between $150 million and $200 million in taxes over the course of the next decade or two. That means that for $90 million Boeing gets tax write-offs worth $150 million or $200 million.
On top of that Boeing will get a $30 million commitment from the Government of Canada to cover product liabilities on the existing fleet of aircraft which has already been built and sent to market. If this deal had been done in a businesslike way, Boeing would have taken over the liabilities of the corporation it acquired. In this case, the Government of Canada is taking back some of those obligations to the tune of $30 million.
When I look at the finances involved in this deal, it is hard to believe how little we are receiving for the $700 million or $800 million we poured into de Havilland over the course of the last 12 years since the company was acquired from its British parent. We have poured that money in and Boeing has now picked up not one but two aircraft which are completely developed. It has also picked up the Buffalo and the Twin Otter, aircraft for which markets continue to exist from time to time. The development costs of these aircraft have been completely paid for.
Today I spoke to someone from Wall Street and 1 asked an expert in the aerospace industry to ask him to evaluate the deal. He pointed out that it was obvious that the output of de Havilland complemented the product line of Boeing. However, in all of the time Boeing has been making aircraft since the first commercial jets were rolled off the assembly line by Bell-Boeing back around 1959 it has stayed away from the field of building commuter aircraft and short take-off and landing aircraft, the aircraft in which de Havilland has chosen to specialize. That is why I find a number of the things in the promises and commitments made and the rationale put for-
December 3, 1985

ward by the Government for this particular deal to be pretty hollow.
It has been said that de Havilland will have a world product mandate for producing commuter aircraft. It has that already. Boeing is not competing in that particular area. If in 25 years Boeing has not gone into that area, it was because it had other interests. It may well cost half a billion dollars to begin building commuter aircraft. That is why Boeing had not chosen to go into that particular sector of the market. Now it is getting into that sector of the market for free or just about for free. It is no wonder it snapped up the opportunity to buy de Havilland when it was offered for sale by the Government of Canada.
The President of the Treasury Board suggested that de Havilland would be able to benefit from the world-wide marketing of the Boeing Corporation. However, de Havilland was already marketing its aircraft around the world. In the course of the last nine months, of the 27 aircraft that rolled out of de Havilland's facilities in Downsview, all but three were sold to the export market. In fact, de Havilland was in the process of establishing an aerospace facility in Singapore because of its growing market in Southeast Asia. It was already marketing around the world and was not being barred or blocked from marketing around the world because of the fact that it was a Canadian company. There were no restraints. There could be restraints now that de Havilland will be under the control of the Boeing Corporation. We already know how many Canadian companies are restrained from selling into their most logical natural markets in the United States because of prohibitions laid upon them by their parent corporations.
In his defence of this deal, the President of the Treasury Board has suggested that there were only two options. In other words, the Government blinkered itself in the end into saying that only two things could be done: one was to shut down de Havilland and the other was to sell it. The Leader of my Party has already spoken of other options. There could have been joint ventures with the private sector or sharing agreements with Boeing. If Boeing did not have a line of commuter aircraft it could sell and if it wanted to look for economies of scale in terms of marketing, servicing and sales support, there would have been a logical connection between the two companies. That should and could have been discussed. However, the Government did not want to see it that particular way.
Canadian purchasers were specifically ruled out of this sale because of the Government's requirement that any bidder had to have airframe manufacturing expertise and financial depth. It was not mentioned publicly, but any bidder also had to have another line of profitable business against which it could offset the tax losses which were ready to be tapped in the de Havilland package.
When Canadair was refinanced a year or so ago, the former Government set it up as old Canadair and new Canadair. New Canadair is profitable because of the fact that its capital obligations to the Government were taken over and it is a separate entity under the wing of the Canada Development Investment Corporation. If that had been done in the case of
Supply
de Havilland, then I would suggest that the price to be paid for it might have been different. It might even have been more attractive to Canadian buyers who would not stand to benefit from the tax losses but who, on the other hand, would prefer to put their investment in de Havilland into development of a new product line and the improvement of its equipment in ways that have been discussed by various Members of the House. That option was clearly not put forward.
The Government said that a purchaser had to take the whole thing lock, stock and barrel, and the carrot was that in addition to getting fully developed aircraft, a buyer of the scale and scope of McDonnell Douglas or Boeing would also be able to get all those juicy, fat tax losses. The businessmen on the board of the Canada Development Investment Corporation who, we are told, endorsed this particular bid, would look at it as if it were a purely private-sector operation.
My Party says quite explicitly that this is not a purely private-sector operation. We are talking about the future of the aerospace industry in Canada. We are talking about whether or not the present Government has any idea of what kind of industry it wishes to see developed over the course of the coming years. This is the vision that is lacking by the present Government. It confined its judgment on this decision to a group of private-sector directors who happened to be drawing their fees by working for the CDIC. Then the former president of a bank, who is now the President of the Treasury Board, decided that that was a good thing, recommended the deal to Cabinet, Cabinet endorsed it, and now the deal is going to go forward apparently without intervention from Investment Canada.
If de Havilland was a subsidiary of a Canadian company, if it was experiencing losses and difficulties in the aerospace market, a market which is not an easy one, and if it was experiencing problems because of competition from subsidized aviation companies from other countries, then a decision to sell out to Boeing, Douglas, Fokker, or some other purchaser might have been entirely justified. I would suggest that a company that is a key company in the aerospace sector because of its buying power and the impact of its research and development throughout the aerospace sector of Canada cannot be dealt with by the Government on that basis.
My research into and thinking this particular area have told me that there are a number of key national industries including automobile, electronics and aerospace industries which are increasingly competing world-wide one with the other in a way that individual corporations used to compete against each other a few years ago. If Canada does not understand that the industrial strategy for a particular industry must be designed and implemented on a national basis, then we are going to find ourselves unable to compete with other countries that see things that way and practise industrial strategies in that manner. It is no secret that the Government of Japan, through the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, does exactly that. It has helped industries to grow and has cut back on industries by looking at them not on a company-by-company

December 3, 1985
Supply
basis but at how the industry as a whole is competing against the same industries of other nations. We are not doing that.
According to the judgment expressed in this deal to sell de Havilland to Boeing, we are simply saying that it is possible for Canada to continue to exist in the 1960s while the rest of the world moves on to the 1990s. There are grave risks inherent in that particular approach.
A bit later, my colleagues will speak about some of our specific concerns with this deal. We are concerned over the fact that vague promises were made but there are no job guarantees for the 4,150 workers of de Havilland. When Rimgate Holdings of Vancouver, a Canadian company that bid on this particular deal, made its offer, it indicated that it was prepared to guarantee a minimum of 3,500 jobs at de Havilland. No such guarantees have come from Boeing in this particular case.
We are concerned with the fact that the public could-and we think should-have either retained ownership or else retained a share in de Havilland in order to ensure that it continued to serve Canadian interests in terms of the development of technology, continued to retain Canadian jobs and in terms of ensuring that sourcing was done here in Canada.
1 do not agree with my colleague, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), who suggests that a Canadian capitalist is no different from an American capitalist. I often find they are almost the same. However, if we had a choice I would prefer ownership to remain here in Canada where, as a Government, we can have some influence upon the company. One matter 1 find particularly objectionable with respect to this deal is the fact that, once the sale is consummated, Canada's potential for influencing or controlling what happens in this key area of this important industry will effectively be zero.
There are no enforceable guarantees which we can see in the deal. All of the information which has been given to us suggests that some vague and glowing promises may have been made by Boeing; but there is no way that these promises will be implemented if Boeing decides to back away from the deal.
It was somewhat ironic to hear the industry critic for the Liberal Party talk yesterday about how Boeing had established a firm with regional development grants in Winnipeg in order to be at the leading edge of fibreglass technology for the aerospace industry. The former Minister said: "Is it not terrible that all it is doing is making fibreglass bathtubs?" That was something which came about under the Liberal Government. It found it was not able or prepared to enforce any type of agreements with Boeing. At least at that time there was some effort to put the agreement down in writing. In this case it is just an agreement to sell and very little will be left in order to enforce the deal.
I say to the taxpayers of Canada with respect to this particular deal: "Hang on to your wallets". With respect to the deal, the Government makes the argument that it is a good deal and, anyway, it is spending a great deal on de Havilland,
much more than it thought the taxpayers should be required to spend. It is interesting that a different argument was made when the Reichmann family spoke about the Canadianization of Gulf Canada and through Olympia & York was given a tax deal which will cost the taxpayers $600 million-all this to increase Canadian ownership in the oil industry and to allow the Reichmanns to take control of Gulf Canada. I am not sure why this different standard applies but it is interesting to note that, in fact, Boeing is a champion free-loader when it comes to taking advantage of government funds in the United States. I suspect we may find that it is just as eager to take advantage of government programs here in Canada.
In the period from 1981 to 1984 Boeing made profits in excess of $2 billion. Of 50 highly profitable corporations it was the champion in terms of generating income tax refunds from the federal Government. It did not pay a nickel in tax, yet it received $285 million in tax refunds from the U.S. federal Government between 1981 and 1984. That does not speak to the fact that the Americans have an industrial strategy, in terms of encouraging the development of large private corporations such as Boeing. This is not done through the process of industrial grants and regional expansion grants. We are criticized by the Americans for carrying out that type of action in terms of implementing a social strategy in Canada. Boeing benefits from defence industry grants at an enormous pace. Clearly, that is the model which is being chosen here in Canada as well. For $60 million net, Boeing is taking over de Havilland, despite the fact that de Havilland has received $200 million in advances from the Government just in the course of the last nine months, according to its most recent quarterly statement. Thus, for $60 million, Boeing receives an entity into which we have put $200 million just in the course of the last few months.
Boeing says that it will develop the new 50-seat version of the Dash-8 and expects it to qualify for repayable support under the Defence Industry Productivity Program. It interests me that an aircraft which I presume, and presumed, is to be used for commercial purposes will be financed by the Government of Canada under the DIPP. I suggest that is evidence that Boeing has said to the Conservative Government: "Look, if you guys and gals want to carry out your privatization and want some evidence that you can take around and show that privatization is a great thing, then give us access to the Defence Industry Productivity Program, despite the fact that what we are producing is a commercial aircraft for the civilian market".
The promises which have been made are vague and there is no guarantee that they can and will be enforced. It is said that de Havilland will keep its capacity for R and D, that it will be maintained and enhanced. How? It has been said that de Havilland will seek to increase the sale of Canadian content with respect to its products. How can that occur? There are no enforcement mechanisms in place.
Boeing has indicated publicly, and I think perhaps we can take the commitment seriously, that it will seek to develop the
December 3, 1985

Stretch version of the Dash-8. Even if that is not enforceable Boeing has agreed to give-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I appreciate that. However, may I have a minute to conclude?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes.


Michael Morris Cassidy: We are opposing this deal because we think it is a sell-out of the Canadian aerospace industry. We think that Canada has sold a major part of the aerospace industry for a mess of potage and a miniscule amount of money. We suggest that this deal is the 1980s version of the Avro Arrow, which we have to remind the House came about under a Conservative Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker).


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my Member of Parliament, the Hon. Member who has just spoken, a question. When I live in Ottawa he is my Member of Parliament. Does the Hon. Member support taxpayers' money being used to subsidize multinational corporations and multinational airlines? I raise this question because the Hon. Member indicated that of the 27 aircraft de Havilland has rolling off its lines, I do not know whether it was this year or this month, all but three are being exported. If the Hon. Member was listening earlier to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), he will have heard the Minister indicate that the losses in de Havilland this year amount to some $55 million. Last year the losses amounted to $76 million. To date we have put $834 million into the company and it would require another $200 million to keep it going. That indicates to me that we are selling these aircraft at a big loss. When aircraft is sold out of the country to be used by someone else, our taxpayers subsidize the sale of that aircraft. I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether or not he supports a subsidy with respect to aircraft being exported. I know that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James does not support such a concept.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, 1 am interested to hear the Hon. Member from Winnipeg taking issue with the policy announced by the President of the Treasury Board. In the material passed around yesterday it is specifically stated that de Havilland will be eligible for the full array of Government programs on the same basis as any other company in Canada and that the existing sales financing program in support of the sale of the Dash-7 and Dash-8 aircraft will be continued. In other words, the export financing subsidies which have proven necessary because of international competition and which have been provided to de Havilland in the past will be continued in the future. If the Hon. Member disagrees with that, then let him get up and say so. What I am saying is that we have to look at what will happen to the aerospace industry in its
entirety as a consequence of this sale, that is, with respect to giving a major chunk of it, 10 per cent or more, to Boeing.


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Member say that he is not opposed to the taxpayers subsidizing losses of companies such as de Havilland since now, with the Boeing proposal, those losses will have to be covered by the operation of the company and not by the taxpayers?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, may 1 say with respect that, as my Leader has said, we face a difficult environment here because virtually every country in the world which has an aerospace industry finds ways of injecting public funds into that industry. That is just as true in the United States where, as I pointed out, Boeing has drawn some $300 million in tax rebates from the American Government and it has not paid a nickel in tax over the last three or four years. Those subsidies do exist. I am suggesting it is a matter of how we direct and control de Havilland which is really at issue. I am particularly offended by the fact that the $400 million or $500 million in tax losses which de Havilland accrued results from taxpayers' money and we are now having to pay again in order to offset any profits it makes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Should the Hon. Member wish to carry on with his comment when debate is resumed he will have five minutes.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, one and one-half years ago the House of Commons passed the Cree-Naskapi Act which was the first Indian self-government Act in our country. The Act fulfilled an obligation of the federal Government under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the first modern land claims settlement in Canada, an agreement, it should be noted, which is now constitutionalized.
For the past one and one-half years the James Bay Cree and Naskapi have been exercising self-government in their own communities and on their lands. At this time, however, there is a looming danger that this bold move forward may be sabo-

December 3, 1985
taged by a failure of the Government, backed by the Department of Indian Affairs, to live up to the financial commitments which accompanied the Act.
The Cree, the Naskapi, and a Minister of the Crown, the previous Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, signed a statement of understanding which allowed for annual adjustments of the grants to operate the self-government institutions. Rather than meaningful negotiations, there is now picayune quibbling and a concerted effort by the Government to wiggle and squeeze out of these commitments, rather than to honour them.
I plead with the Government. Do not hinder Indian self-government. Face up to your obligations. Proceed on the basis of good faith. Cease your efforts to frustrate the process.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, within a very short time millions of Canadians will once again be asked to fill out their income tax forms. For most, this is an annual nightmare. The convoluted goobledygook of the income tax form is about as decipherable to the ordinary Canadian as are Egyptian hieroglyphics. The latest batch of amendments which the Government has brought forward will only add to the complexity and unfairness of the current system. None of these proposals is more of a boondoggle for the rich than the $500,000 lifetime capital gains exemption. Recently it was reported that:
The exemption will have a disastrous effect structurally on the tax system. Its scope is too broad . .. Practitioners fail to see how tax-free capital gains on the disposition of jewelry, summer cottages, or Florida condominiums provide much benefit for the economy.
Who am I quoting Mr. Speaker? A member of the New Democratic Party? No. The President of the National AntiPoverty Organization? No. I am quoting Mr. William Lawlor, national tax partner with Ernst & Whinney, former official in the tax policy division of the Department of Finance and a technical adviser to the Conservative Task Force on Revenue Canada.
Mr. Lawlor is hardly a radical, but you do not have to be a radical to understand that this tax break is unfair. When will the Government realize that shovelling more money into the pockets of the wealthy cannot substitute for a well planned, realistic approach to get Canada working again?



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government has acted wisely in the sale of the de
Flavilland Company to Boeing. One of our campaign pledges was to privatize certain Crown corporations. More than $800 million of taxpayers' money was poured into this company over the years by Liberal Governments.
The Canadian content provision will create thousands of jobs for Canadians. The Government has taken a realistic and prudent step in moving de Havilland into the mainstream of world aircraft production.
It has long been clear that a successful aircraft industry must operate in a context of world marketing, sales and distribution organizations, and this will now be provided for de Havilland through the Boeing connection. At the same time the Government has taken steps to preserve Canadian expertise and enhance research and development at de Havilland.
The Boeing deal means the survival of de Havilland as a viable Canadian operation. It means the preservation of thousands of Canadian jobs and relief to the taxpayer from a huge and burdensome debt load. It should be praised, not criticized.



CHILDREN


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Vlirauik'hi):: Mr. Speaker, the New Brunswick Federation of Home and School Associations has expressed to me its very great and valid concern about the violent and sexually explicit lyrics in today's so-called music.
My problem, and I suspect it is shared by many parents and grandparents, is that this garbage which passes for music is so atrocious that not only do we not pay attention to the words, we do not listen to it, period. However, it is time we did. It is time we listened to the smut coming across the air waves, songs like Darling Nikki, which I understand is about a girl who masturbates with a magazine: or another song called 10 Seconds to Love, about oral sex in an elevator; songs that promote not just rape, torture and rebellion, but even suicide among youth.
Over the weekend I heard Anne Murray, a Canadian superstar in the music industry, decry the lyrics of these songs, saying she does not listen to them and would not degrade herself by singing them.
I bring this to the attention of the House not to shock, although it is shocking, but to plead for a reaction to this moral degradation of our children by entertainers whose credo is that sex and violence sells. If this be culture, it is not Canadian culture. This call to arms was initiated by concerned parents and educators. Should we choose to ignore it, we do so at our peril.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 3, 1985



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a red letter day for Liberals across the country. The Tory tide is going out. We saw that last night in Quebec with a landslide Liberal victory. Liberals also scored in Prince Edward Island. Islanders elected two more Liberals in by-elections last night. Liberals won a seat which was conservative for the last 42 years. The P.E.I. Conservative Government is now on very shaky ground.
What does this say about the attitudes of Canadians? An anti-Conservative tide is sweeping the country and that tide will be high by the time the Mulroney Government gets back to the polls. Voters are mad at the Government. It promised jobs, jobs, jobs. We did not get any jobs.
We are stuck with a Government which bases all its decisions upon a user-pay philosophy. It is a Government which is nickel and diming to death the working men and women of the country. It is a Government which has already told working Canadians it is time to pay up, so it has introduced inspection fees for potatoes, dredging fees, ice-breaking fees, berthage fees. It is skimming the top off family allowance cheques, and increasing ferry rates and entrance fees at national parks. It is giving the fishery to the multinational corporations in the offshore and taking it away from inshore fishermen. The list goes on and on.
Does the Government have any compassion at all for Canadians? The Mulroney Government cozies up to Ronald Reagan and big business. The Government is losing-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of a funding proposal from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians for the fall, winter, and spring sessions of their legislative assemblies. The problem is that they're having trouble getting funding from the Government which sits across the way.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) made a commitment to the Federation to fund their assemblies. However, so far they are having trouble getting the money. This fall they needed $250,000 and they received, after a lot of probing and pushing, only $170,000. They have another assembly planned for this winter which will cost around $178,000, and another one for this spring which will cost $289,000. The problem is that they have not received the money and they are not getting any co-operation from the Minister from whom they have a commitment.
I ask the House to give me some help and get the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians some help in gaining the money they deserve. When the Constitution debate was going on we said we had to enshrine treaty rights in the Constitution and recognize our Indian and aboriginal people. Here is a chance to put our money where our mouth is. These assemblies are important for the people of Saskatchewan as well as the Saskatchewan Indians, and I call upon the Minister to come up with the money he promised. Let this not be another broken Conservative promise to the Indian people of our country. I want action, and I want action now.

[ Translation]



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians will be very pleased with the news that the Progressive Conservative Government is keeping its promise to privatize Crown corporations. The sale of de Havilland Aircraft Ltd. to Boeing is an example of this Government's efforts to return to the private sector the industries that belong there.
This transaction will certainly improve the company's competitive position on the international aerospace market, while protecting Canadian interests in the high technology sector. Selling the assets of this Crown corporation will also considerably reduce the financial burden Canadian taxpayers have felt for so many years. The House will recall that the Government of Canada, in other words, the Canadian taxpayer, has had to inject $830 million into this Crown corporation over the last ten years.
Today, de Havilland has reached a critical stage in its development. It needs firm, long term financial commitments and must diversify production to reduce costs, and that is exactly what Boeing is in a position to do. The transaction will also generate more than $325 million in contracts for Canadian business. These projects will have the advantage of creating thousands of jobs in Canada. Instead of draining millions of dollars from the pockets of Canadian taxpayers every year, this company will probably also-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.
December 3, 1985




David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, while much attention has been directed toward yesterday's announcement of the sale of de Havilland by the federal Government, another Crown corporation was also sold yesterday. In this case it was not the money the Government threw out the window but jobs and investment for two provinces, Quebec and Nova Scotia, that need economic help of every kind.
Canadian Arsenals Ltd. was sold for $92.2 million. However, in its rush to sell the company, the Government of Canada dismissed another bid with a much more advantageous package of economic benefits. International Defence Products offered to purchase Canadian Arsenals Ltd. for a total price of $40 million. However, its package also included a promise that, in the first 12 months, 80 new full-time jobs in Quebec would be created, increasing personal incomes by $5 million, and that 130 new full-time jobs would be created in Nova Scotia, increasing personal income there by $31 million. There would be a $38 million expansion of existing facilities in Quebec, and a new brass mill and two modern plants would be established in Cape Breton, worth $100 million. The jobs would be permanent and pay an average of $25,000 per worker.
It was a total of $214 million in economic benefits to Canada and 200 well paying permanent jobs that the Government had a chance to create, yet it turned its back on the unemployed. They are the type of jobs that the Government promised my province and the Province of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.




Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Government on yesterday's announcement of the sale of two more Crown corporations, de Havilland Aircraft of Canada and Canadian Arsenals Ltd.
This is another step on the road to economic recovery and improving government management which we began just over one year ago.
In his Budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced a task force to privatize or dissolve Crown corporations which no longer fulfil a specific public policy purpose. Previous announcements have been made regarding the sale or winding up of Northern Transportation Company Limited, the Canada Development Corporation, Canagrex, Loto Canada,
the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation, the Canada Museums Construction Corporation, and others.
Yesterday's announcement is particularly notable for the sale of de Havilland for $155 million. During the past 10 years de Havilland gobbled up $700 million of taxpayers' money. For the first nine months of this year the corporation had a loss of $55 million. Through this sale we are keeping a major promise to the Canadian people to take responsible action with regard to Crown corporations.
We were able to recognize a good deal when we saw one, something the previous Government failed to do, as well as relieve the taxpayers of a burden they have been carrying. The people of Canada recognize that it takes time to ensure that the deals we are negotiating are the best ones for Canada. They realize that the Government, as each day goes by, is making good on its commitment to good management and to stimulation of economic growth through the private sector.
These sales are a prime example of this administration, under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), fulfilling another election commitment.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I call on the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) to take action on behalf of the Canadian Pacific Railway pensioners who have lost their rail travel passes, a right they have had for generations.
There are many Members of the House who have protested this disgraceful unilateral action by the CPR toward former employees who have served it loyally. Some Members have also noted that the replacement health benefits do little for retirees in provinces with good provincial health plans, and that they actually interfere with the Blue Cross supplementary plan.
What Members may not know is that the Minister of Labour has stopped this issue from being heard as a grievance by the Canada Labour Relations Board as requested by the railway shopcraft unions.
Rather than give his approval for a hearing, the Minister instead sat on the application for two months while the passes expired, and then appointed his own investigator, which has further delayed any resolution.
The railway unions are still prepared to take the case of the CPR retirees to the CLRB. What is needed is approval from the Minister of Labour. Is the Minister prepared to act so that the case can be heard? Or is he, by his actions to date, only underlining the feelings of so many CP pensioners, namely, that justice delayed is justice denied?
December 3, 1985



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN TRADE OF U.S.S.R.

Mr. Speaker:: May 1 draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in our gallery today of two gentlemen, in alphabetical order. The first is Mr. Victor Ivanov, Deputy Minister of Foreign Trade of the Soviet Union.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF TRANSPORT FOR BERMUDA

Mr. Speaker:: Also I draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence of the Hon. Sidney Stallard, Minister of Transport for Bermuda.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly direct question for the Prime Minister. It arises out of his agreement with the provincial First Ministers in Halifax. That agreement purported to allow full provincial participation in the negotiations with the United States on free trade. Does this mean that the provincial Premiers now have an effective veto over the negotiations with the United States?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the document which guides this is a matter of public record. It says that it is a preparatory phase and that during the preparatory phase the provinces agree with the federal Government, without in any way contesting the primacy of the federal Government, which remains unchallenged and undiminished, that we very much want intimate consultation to develop a strategy that will be beneficial to the provinces and to the country. To this end we have agreed upon a document, the four modalities of which are set forward in writing. It says that during the 90-day period, among other things, the preparatory work should include the determination of how best to give effect to the principle of full participation in the subsequent phases of the negotiation. That is what it is all about.
We very much want the provinces involved in the process, in the definition of the objectives and in the manner in which we do this as a nation. We think it is vital that we have their participation. We have actively sought it, and we welcome it.
Oral Questions
In the next 90 days we will deal with the manner in which it is secured.


VIEWS OF PREMIERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, of course that is not the interpretation placed upon the agreement by the provincial Premiers. Premier David Peterson, at the end of the conference, said: "The bottom line is the negotiating team will take instructions from the First Ministers. That is where it is, and the final authority rests with the First Ministers". Donald Getty, the Premier of Alberta, said: "The negotiating team becomes our team". If those interpretations were placed on the agreement by the First Ministers at the conclusion of the conference-and 1 gather they were made in the presence of the Prime Minister-why did he not take issue with those statements and declare the federal position?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, because the federal position is the position which was agreed upon unanimously by the federal Government and the provinces, and reflected in this document. That is what it is all about. We agreed in a formal manner on the phases and the manner in which this would be developed. It was agreed upon with the provinces.
This is the first time we have engaged in this kind of negotiation. It is new to us. It is new to the provinces. We would never atttempt to bring home a deal which was not in the best interests of the provinces or one which did not enhance the prosperity of all Canadians. There is absolutely no reason for us even to contemplate that. This is the manner, the formal agreement between the provinces and the federal Government, whereby we set out the parameters and the modalities for achieving that objective. I think, in a federal state, that that is the proper way of doing it.


PARTICIPATION OF PROVINCES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has allowed a serious misinterpretation to arise on the part of the provincial Premiers. Obviously they feel that they have a full, direct, equal partnership in the negotiations and a veto over the negotiations. Is it to that the Prime Minister is agreeing? Is that what he is saying? This side of the House can agree with consultation, but we want to know what the definition of full provincial participation really means.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend put aside his negativism for a second and read the document, he might find out.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 3, 1985
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: We know the Liberal Party is against everything because it stands for nothing. It is just against. We know what it is against, but we do not know what it is for.


Mr. Chretien:: You're falling, Brian.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The answer is precisely in the document. That is what it is all about. I invite my right hon. friend to take a second to read the document which says that this preparatory work should include the determination of how best to give effect to the principle of full provincial participation in subsequent phases of the negotiations.
Ambassador Reisman, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Minister for International Trade will begin tomorrow their 90-day consultations with the provinces to produce the kinds of agreements that we hope will make absolutely redundant any reference to negativism and vetoes. We are not going to bring back anything that will be vetoed. We are going to make a good deal for Canada and all the provinces.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. It is about yesterday's sell-out of de Havilland. Last December I asked for the assurance that Investment Canada would be able to review any takeover of de Havilland before it became final. I was told by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion that it would not. He said: "Surely to suggest that Investment Canada should have a review in addition to cabinet review and that which would take place in this House is totally unnecessary". I now want to call on the Prime Minister to give us that parliamentary review before the takeover of de Havilland becomes final.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier today in debate, the details of the final agreement will be made public in the appropriate forum and will be open to discussion in that forum at the appropriate date.


MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister what that means. Does that mean that we will see the memorandum of agreement before it becomes final? No one in the country, besides the Government, has been able to see what the memorandum of agreement provides. Will we be able to see it so that we will know what conditions there are that may or may not be fulfilled before there is a final sell-out of de Havilland to an American company?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as we indicated yesterday, there are still some details to be worked out between the Government and Boeing. As soon as those details are worked out they will be made public. I would like to re-emphasize that this particular initiative of the Government will not only strengthen de Havilland but will strengthen the entire aerospace industry in Canada and provide for secure jobs which already exist.


REASON FOR SALE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The last time we had a large majority Government it sold out the Avro-Arrow. We are now seeing history repeated with de Havilland. The taxpayers of Canada put up in excess of $800 million for investment in de Havilland. We are now out of the recession in that industry and its models are beginning to sell around the world. Why in heaven's name did the Government pick this moment to sell an important Canadian company to the United States?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we are making good on a commitment which we made throughout the election campaign and since, that we would return to the private sector those companies which no longer fulfil public policy purposes and which were essentially commercial. That is exactly what we are doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the one commitment the Government made in the campaign was to combine de Havilland with Canadair and to keep it in Canada. That is the commitment that was made in the campaign. Check with the Minister of Finance. At least Mr. Diefenbaker got to his feet to defend the Avro decision, unlike the present Prime Minister.


AMOUNT OF SELLING PRICE
John Edward Broadbent: The list price for this deal is $155 million. Special concessions offered by the Government, including product insurance, DIPP grants, and tax write-offs, give Boeing about $500 million. Does it make sense to the Government that we should be giving Boeing more than twice the listed selling price with Canadian taxpayers' money? Does that make business sense to the Government?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, it makes eminent business sense and this is not a decision that we have to defend. This is a great decision for Canada and for the aerospace industry.
The situation we are facing is very simple. In the first nine months of this year de Havilland lost $55 million. Last year de Havilland lost $76 million. That was taxpayers' money. The best estimate for next year was that de Havilland would lose $200 million. That is taxpayers' money, and that is what we are going to save the taxpayers.
December 3, 1985


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, instead of that the Government is going to lose the $700 million it has already invested, give the Americans $500 million more, and think it got a good deal. I would say that that is business genius!
1 would like to ask the Prime Minister a question. 1 hope he will deal with the issue. Does he consider it-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Back to teaching university, Ed. Back to the Liberal Party.


John Edward Broadbent: There he is, sputtering away, the former Prime Minister who will always remain a former Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McDermid:: At least he got there. You never will.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Supplementary question?


Mr. Deans:: You can always tell when we're getting under their skin. They won't let us ask.


John Edward Broadbent: My question is for the present Prime Minister. Considering that taxpayers are going to put up some $500 million for the Americans for something with a list price of $155 million, does the Prime Minister think it is a good deal for Canadian taxpayers to put up the money while American citizens will end up with the deed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, obviously my hon. friend has failed to realize that the $700 million that was pumped into de Havilland is money is already gone.
With regard to another grave misstatement of fact, he referred to the decision of a previous Government in regard to the shutting down of the Avro-Arrow. What we are doing today is saving de Havilland and securing jobs for de Havilland workers. That is the difference. There will not be fewer jobs but more jobs for de Havilland workers.
With regard to the fundamental question my friend raises, the figures mentioned by the President of the Treasury Board are, I think, eloquent. There were serious losses, not only in the past but projected. Pursuant to our commitments to the Canadian people, we have looked for a purchaser that would strengthen the jobs of those employees and make de Havilland a stronger, bigger and more prosperous company, and a greater contributor to technology and development. We believe that this is the manner in which it ought to be done, and we think it is a gesture that will benefit the workers and the company and make a significant contribution to Canada.
Oral Questions


FREE EXCHANGE-NUMBER OF PROVINCES REQUIRED TO CREATE A VETO
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the question of free trade and ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister how many provinces it will take to have a veto, when the 90-day period is over, since the Premier of Ontario, Mr. Peterson, and the Premier of Alberta clearly indicated they had that right. How many provinces will it take to bring negotiations with the Americans to a standstill?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): The Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice is always talking about the past and about vetoes. That was typical of the Liberal Government. We are now setting up a mechanism for co-operation between two levels of Government which will concentrate on what brings Canadians together, not on what can divide them.


INQUIRY IF CERTAIN PROVINCES WILL HAVE POWER TO STOP NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the provincial premiers are very anxious to know what the agreement involves, and I shall repeat my question: Will the Premier of Ontario or the Premier of Quebec or both or will the Premier of Alberta have the power to stop negotiations with the United States?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member has some understanding of the Canadian Constitution and existing jurisdictions. What we are doing is create a situation where the various governments can act together. We acted together in Halifax to set up a process and establish a principle. For the first time in Canada's history, we have established the principle that the provinces have a right to full participation in negotiations on international trade.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Full participation?


Charles Joseph Clark: That is the first stage. We are engaged in a step-by-step process. As the agreement clearly points out, the process, the conditions governing subsequent stages will be established jointly by the governments.

December 3, 1985
Oral Questions


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I wish to refer to the statement of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion which he made last December in which he said that Investment Canada would not be required to look at the de Havil-land sale because of review by the Cabinet and by the House. Will the Prime Minister undertake to ensure that the House will have such a review of the de Havilland sale before the deal with Boeing is consummated?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, those procedures which are in place and which would apply by the normal course of events will apply.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE EXAMINATION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, may I be specific since there is perhaps a gray area. Will the Prime Minister undertake to have a parliamentary committee or this House review the sale of de Havilland to Boeing in order that we can look at the $500 million in taxpayers' money which will go to the deal? in this way we can look as well at alternatives, such as the purchase by Rimgate Holdings, a Canadian company, which would have kept this important company in Canadian hands? Will we have such a parliamentary review- yes or no?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the Hon. Member's question as a representation. It will be one of the factors which we will take into account with respect to this transaction, and other transactions, in the privatization program of the Government.


INSURANCE COSTS-REQUEST FOR EXAMINATION BY AUDITOR GENERAL
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, we have now had three Ministers try to justify what is not justifiable. I would like to go back to a specific part of the transaction.
The Government has agreed to a most unprecedented arrangement whereby it will cover all insurance costs and future liabilities of de Havilland aircraft instead of having Boeing undertake proper responsibility for those liabilities as would normally occur. Considering the irregularity of such an action, will the Government ask the Auditor General to examine that part of the financial transaction, or will it refer the matter immediately to the Finance committee so that we can get to exactly why this particular and peculiar arrangement was made?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as is often the case, the premise of the question is false. Boeing has agreed to assume the cost of insuring all aircraft produced to date, including those produced while de Havilland was under ownership by the Crown. What the Crown has agreed to do is share in a part of those insurance costs which are incremental, in other words, in the increasing insurance costs and, at that, on a declining basis over time.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the answer of the Minister we can be thankful that Boeing did not offer the Brooklyn Bridge or Florida swampland in exchange for de Havilland, since obviously the Minister would have taken it up on the deal.
What we want to know about this very important arrangement is why the Government has also agreed to a series of open-ended commitments for development grants, research loans, and other forms of assistance which could amount to over $300 million.


John Edward Broadbent: $500 million.


Lloyd Axworthy: We would like to know why the Government has not asked for some continuing equity or participation on behalf of Canadian taxpayers in that company to ensure that those investments will be properly controlled and managed.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, what we have done in this letter of understanding is indicate that Boeing and de Havilland will be eligible for existing Government programs, just like any other corporate citizens in the country. In return, and apart from the price, what we will be getting is a deal with a corporation which is strong financially and strong from a management point of view. This is a company with a great deal of expertise in international marketing. It will bring new technology and new jobs. It will provide a world product mandate which will open markets for Canadian workers and Canadian companies.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Skelly:: Let's sell the Government.


Charles Joseph Clark: We did that in 1979.


Simon Leendert de Jong: And what a bargain that was!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


IMPACT ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. Will he not agree that the decision of the last Conservative majority Government to close down Avro-Arrow cost us in terms of jobs, technology, and research? Does he not feel that his Government's decision is
December 3, 1985

likely to involve the same type of loss in terms of our future in this world?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I think the House is indicating its concern that the question relates to a matter of government policy of a different Government. Does the Hon. member wish to put his question directly to this Government about matters of Government policy?


Rodney Edward Murphy: My question to the Minister, then, since the Government does not want to deal wi'th what happened in the past, is this: Has this Government done any study of what the effects of this particular deal and this memorandum of agreement will mean in terms of research and development and in terms of any losses in these areas?


Robert René de Cotret: Yes, we certainly have, Mr. Speaker. In terms of research and development what this deal means is more. It means a commitment, for example, to develop the Dash-8 at a cost of several hundreds of millions of dollars. Again, that will mean more jobs, more investment, and an upgrading of the plant at Downsview. I think this is a very positive deal. It retains our own technology, builds on what we have in place already, and it ensures a bright future for that company and the whole of the aerospace industry in the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES FOR EDUCATION AND HEALTH CARE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister with respect to the First Ministers' Conference in Halifax. I quote to him a statement made by the Premier of Ontario with regard to transfer payments. He said:
-these cuts which were announced without consultation speeded up by a year without discussion ... will weaken our country in the very areas where we must marshall our greatest strengths.
I ask the Prime Minister, and I ask him sincerely, where is the fairness in cutting back on moneys for post-secondary education and for health care when billions of dollars have been provided to multinational oil companies and to other companies? Where is the fairness?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend quoted the distinguished Premier of Ontario in his question, or at least I believe he did. There is another quote from the Premier of Ontario which 1 saw on the front page of a Toronto newspaper on Sunday in which he said that the Conservatives inherited one hell of a mess from the Liberals, Financially. What we are trying to do is make that
Oral Questions
mess an awful lot better and, in the process, strengthen the economy of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISION-REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, 1 would have thought we would have received some sincerity from the Prime Minister. However, I guess all we will get is his famous temerity.
I wish to quote the words of the Premier of Ontario again. He said:
-we propose that the federal Government live up to its commitment to genuine consultation by deferring the post-secondary education and health care cuts that are scheduled to be moved in April of next year.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


David Charles Dingwall: Will the Prime Minister not do the honourable thing and defer these cut-backs in 1986 until the next year? Will he not do the honourable thing?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend believes that that is the honourable thing to do, then he is entitled to his opinion. We have an obligation to maintain the expansion which this Government has initiated in co-operation with the provinces since we have come to power. That recovery remains fragile. We have initiated policies which have created jobs. In terms of the creation of jobs, the Liberals averaged 85,000 a year. We have created over 300,000 jobs in our first year in office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Interest rates have gone down by three percentage points. Productivity is increasing.


John R. Rodriguez: This is a recording.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We have an obligation to build upon that, and that requires the installation of some Fiscal sanity here in Ottawa.


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We propose to do precisely that.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-PROVINCIAL PARTICIPATION
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have in front of me the famous statement to which the Prime Minister referred earlier. Is the Prime Minister saying that Premier Peterson is wrong to state that the principle of full provincial participation means that the negotiator will receive his instructions from the First Ministers?

December 3, 1985
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what we are saying and what the document says-the document, among others, written by Mr. O'Neil, the Minister of Trade for the Government of Ontario-is that the first 90 days, the first step in this process, would include the determination of how best to give effect to the principle of full provincial participation in subsequent phases of the negotiation. That is absolutely clear. We are taking this matter step by step. That was agreed to by all of the provinces.
The Premier of Ontario has given his interpretation. I would suggest he is a little ahead of himself. What we are doing now is sitting down with all of the provincial Governments to determine how that principle would apply to subsequent phases of the negotiation.


ONTARIO PREMIER'S INTERPRETATION
Steven W. Langdon: Do I take it, then, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of State for External Affairs is explicitly rejecting the interpretation of the Premier of Ontario by stating that he is ahead of himself? Is this a specific repudiation of the comments which have been made about this document by provincial Premiers right across the country? Will the Minister admit he is repudiating them? At least do that clearly.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has worked very hard and very successfully to achieve an atmosphere of co-operation between federal and provincial Governments on trade. The New Democratic Party is working very hard and very unsuccessfully to break up these negotiations-


Ian Deans: We are trying to get the truth.


Charles Joseph Clark: -and to restore a sense of bitterness to federal-provincial relations.
The Hon. Member has asked me what I am doing explicitly. What I am doing explicitly is quoting the document which was agreed to by 11 Governments, including the Government of the Province of Ontario, which sets forth the idea that we will approach the question of full participation step by step. We have spelled it out for the first step, and together, as is the determination of this Government, we will spell out how it applies in subsequent steps.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. I am sure he is aware that water levels in the Great Lakes basin are above normal. Due to high winds over the past couple of days we
have had severe flooding in that particular area. Is the Minister willing to look into the situation and assist residents along the north shore of Lake Erie, if possible?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am. In fact my Department is already deeply involved in issuing warnings of flooding and erosion damage. We are active as well in the provision of technical information to the International Joint Commission which is responsible for the regulation of the water levels.
I should tell the Hon. Member, though, that the huge Great Lakes system is almost totally controlled by natural processes of precipitation and evaporation so there is very little we can actually do to control the water levels themselves. However, the Hon. Member may also wish to know that federal disaster assistance program may apply in this case, provided that certain specific criteria are met and provided as well that there is a request from the Province of Ontario for such assistance.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. We have in our possession the Government's negotiating paper on planned changes to the Canada Pension Plan which raises the disturbing spectre that the position of the Government will be to take a nickel and dime approach to fundamental changes in key areas of pension reform.
Would the Minister of National Health and Welfare commit his Government to the principle of an actuarially reduced early retirement age so that Canadian workers can have access to the Canada Pension Plan at 60 years of age? And, second, in the area of disability benefits, would the Minister agree to the proposal that these people should be treated as if they were retired, with the appropriate levels of benefits?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this Government is committed to reform of the Canada Pension Plan. We have stated that. The Prime Minister has stated it both in the election campaign and subsequently. That has been done in a very consistent manner.
What I will say to the Hon. Member, as 1 said to him yesterday in committee, is that the Minister of Finance with his provincial counterparts and some other Ministers who have responsibility in this area, such as myself, are negotiating. The position of negotiation, as I mentioned to the Hon. Member yesterday, is obviously not to be discussed in the House. However, I want to say to the Hon. Member that the commitment is there and the negotiations are going well.
December 3, 1985


PENSIONS FOR HOMEMAKERS
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are going on but what is disturbing is that the negotiating paper indicates a very cautious and nickel and dime approach to some of these key areas which I believe all Canadians are in agreement need to be overhauled.
My question is in regard to the homemaker's proposal which the Minister announced yesterday in one of his speeches to a women's group. Why is his Government now waffling on the position taken by his own Party on homemakers? And will the Minister commit the Government to a retroactive introduction of homemakers to the Canada Pension Plan?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: First, I did not make a speech. I was asked a question by a responsible women's organization as to whether the commitment stood. 1 said the commitment stood and we want to have that kind of reform. Second, there is no waffling. I just hope that the Liberal Party will come out in favour, as this Government has done, of homemaker's pensions, so that we can get on with the job, and in fact, it can convince some of its provincial friends of the same thing.


LAY-OFF OF 600 WORKERS IN MONTREAL EAST-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.
Ultramar has just announced this afternoon that it will buy the Montreal East Gulf refinery, keep the service stations open, but close the refinery itself, so that some 600 workers will be laid off. Here is my question: What does the Government intend to do to make sure that the 600 Montreal East workers will have jobs, considering that the unemployment rate is already very high in that area?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the disposition of Gulfs downstream assets in Quebec and Atlantic Canada is strictly a matter between two private sector companies. Of course the Government of Canada has no control over the decision or of the timing. What we did do was ask that the refinery remain open for another two months so that possible buyers could come forward. During that period some possibilities emerged but no commercially viable deal was struck between the companies.
It is our understanding that some of the employees will be retained at the Montreal refinery site because it will continue to operate as a tank farm. Other refineries in the area are looking at hiring and efforts are being made to place the employees.
Oral Questions
I should also add that this is part of a world-wide problem. There have been 10 refinery closures in Canada within the last three years.


POSITION OF EMPLOYEES TO BE LAID OFF
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question was very specific. 1 want to know what the Minister is going to do for the other employees who will be thrown out of work, because only a few will be kept in the refineries. Six hundred employees will be thrown out of work, and there is already an unemployment problem in the east end of Montreal.
Specifically, what is the Government going to do for those 600 employees who are being thrown out of work, because there are two other companies which will soon be closing their doors as well?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, clearly the Hon. Member does not understand the situation. This Government is doing everything it can for those employees in the Montreal area who have been affected, as it has for others with the job programs we have brought in which, as we have pointed out, have increased employment across the country.
I would like to point out that the Hon. Member is a member of a Party which supported the National Energy Program of off-oil or conservation, where the taxpayers of Canada spent $550 million to discourage the residents of Quebec from using oil. So it is hardly surprising that the demand for oil has dropped in that province.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct another question to the Prime Minister on the de Havilland deal. I hope he will respond to it. 1 think Canadians will shortly come to the conclusion that this has been a bad business deal for our country. What we have really given to Boeing is a $1 billion Christmas bonus. Why did the Government give away about $1 billion worth of high technology in the aerospace industry, and do so in such a way as to give control to an American company without retaining some Canadian control in this very highly developed aerospace venture?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, once again the premise of the question is somewhat erroneous. We are not giving away technology, we are preserving and enhancing it.


John Edward Broadbent: And no guarantees.

December 3, 1985
Oral Questions


Robert René de Cotret: A world product mandate means that all of the production of the existing product lines of de Havilland will be maintained in Canada. The use of any of that technology outside Canada requires, according to the understanding, specific ministerial control. So we have not given away technology, we have maintained it.


John Napier Turner: Until we see that agreement we cannot make a judgment about that.


PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE PROPOSAL
John Napier Turner: My
supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. I hope he will respond to my second supplementary as he did to the third supplementary of my friend, the Leader of the NDP.


Charles Joseph Clark: "Friend" understates it.


John Napier Turner: When the Prime Minister responds to the final question, the questioner cannot get back at him.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Napier Turner: I am assured of an answer now, Mr. Speaker.
On February 23, 1984, in the city of Toronto, the Prime Minister promised the creation of a joint Senate and House of Commons committee on Crown corporations with the mandate and resources to undertake effective reviews of individual corporations. Why has the Prime Minister broken this promise? Why has he not allowed a parliamentary committee to review the situation in de Havilland, Canadair and other companies so we have a chance to review this before it becomes a firm agreement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: First of all, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend is right. We all live in terror of his questions. That is well known. However, he has the facts a wee bit wrong. When I was Leader of the Opposition I stood and asked the then Liberal Prime Minister for a parliamentary committee to investigate the spending of another $400 million on Canadair in Montreal. He said no, and all those trained seals sitting next to the Right Hon. Member stood up and applauded that rejection of a request for a parliamentary committee.
What we have done is campaign on a commitment to privatize Crown corporations to the advantage of Canadian taxpayers. This is an idea that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition developed when he was seeking the leadership of the Liberal Party. Then he was in favour of spinning off Crown corporations, but now he has changed his mind.


Charles Joseph Clark: Again.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, we are consistent, and we want to make the best deal for the Canadian taxpayer, secure those jobs and that technology in Toronto, and that is what we have done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last week he met with the Premier of British Columbia regarding Lyell Island and the federal view that there must be negotiations with the Haida on their legal claims to title to the Queen Charlotte Islands. The Prime Minister undertook in this House to advise the House of the results of those discussions regarding this urgent federal-provincial matter. Will he take this opportunity to advise the House of any common ground he found with Premier Bennett in furthering the negotiations between the Haida and the provincial and federal Governments?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My apologies to the Minister, because I did respond in the House. The conversations are ongoing and when I have information to impart to the Hon. Member I will so advise.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL INITIATIVE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister is aware that the communities on the Queen Charlotte Islands and in other areas of British Columbia are becoming highly polarized over this matter. Would he be prepared to put forward a federal process now which can address the legal claims of the Haida, the federal park proposals in relation to South Moresby, and a recovery proposal which will replace job for job those who may be displaced by any kind of shut-down of logging in the contested area?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could respond to the Hon. Member. As he may know, I have had elements of the comments made by him under consideration by the parties concerned. As recently as just prior to Question Period I had some further discussions. 1 expect to be out there myself at the beginning of next week and there will be some communication between now and then regarding this situation.


ADMINISTRATION OF IMPORT PERMITS
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Charges have been laid in connection with the hundreds of

December 3, 1985

missing cheese import permits, but this action may be just the tip of the Mozzarella.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Under the system of permit distribution this Government inherited from its predecessor it has been possible for firms convicted of illegal use of permits to get new permits. What action can this Government take to tighten up the administration of permit distribution?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am happy to advise that action has already begun. Fines in the amount of SI 11,000 have been levied against nine companies. On November 29, 121 charges were laid against Marquis Foods of Toronto. My officials are presently carrying out a comprehensive review of all matters dealing with import and export permits, which includes the issuing of quotas, and we expect to have a preliminary report ready early in the year.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF GULF SALE
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: On this sad day, Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources respecting the Gulf refinery shutdown which will wipe out 600 more jobs in Montreal East, an area already quite depressed as it is. If her memory is good, the Minister will probably recall that right here in the House she refused to give her Government's financial backing to a Quebec company that wanted to buy Gulf to operate the refinery, not to shut it down. My question to the Minister is simply this: How can she now wash her hands off this whole matter, like Pontius Pilate, and pretend that it is a deal between two private companies, whereas she once had an opportunity to intervene but chose not to do anything?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to find the actual question in that statement. At no time did I ever say in this House that there would be a grant given to the refinery because we have written information from Ultramar that if funds are made available to a Montreal refinery in a market where demand has dropped 40 per cent, Ultramar would close its refinery in Quebec City. Clearly the problem is one of reduced demand for oil caused partly by the Hon. Member's own Party when it was in power. It spent, as I said, $500 million persuading the people of Quebec not to use oil, and demand for oil has dropped.
Oral Questions


INQUIRY CONCERNING PROGRAMS TO HELP WORKERS LAID IN MONTREAL EAST
Jacques Guilbault: For instance, Mr. Speaker, the Minister will recall that it was the Government of Quebec and not the Government of Canada which encouraged people to switch to electricity.
Since it now appears the 600 workers-


Mr.   La Salle@: Do you agree?


Jacques Guilbault: Do your homework! Since it now appears the 600 workers will be thrown out of work, may I put this question to someone on the Government benches: What adjustment programs are to be implemented to help those people survive after being laid off?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, 1 have already indicated that some of the employees will be retained and others will be hired by other refineries in the area. 1 would just like to point out that three other refineries have closed in the Montreal area in the last three years when the former Government was in power, and they did nothing at all for those three refineries. I would also like to point out that if you average the number of jobs created in Quebec since our Government came to power, it comes to 6,846 a month, compared to only 673 under the Liberal Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Mayor Mel Lastman of the City of North York has set up a task force on the sensitive topic of abuse of the elderly. It is being chaired by Doctor Jerry Cooper. Since this is obviously an issue of national concern, what initiatives is the Government planning to look into this critical situation?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the point the Hon. Member raises is a valid one. Abuse takes different forms. As he has pointed out in his question, one could result in legal action. There are other types of abuse, such as mental abuse, social abuse, and abuse from family members putting pressure on the elderly in terms of their money. There are various forms of abuse.
I want to commend the Hon. Member and his colleagues for the initiatives they are taking. Obviously I look forward to

December 3, 1985
Statements by Ministers
further representations which he and others might make as to the appropriate action we should consider.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Monday, December 2, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, there is a matter that I feel compelled to bring to your attention in your capacity as guardian of the decorum of the precincts of the House of Commons.
In meeting room 308, West Block, there has recently been attached to the wall a large framed election poster. In large letters it has on it the word "Liberal" in that Party's colours and there is wording on it to indicate that it was published under the authority of the Liberal Party.


Ms. Copps:: Don't lecture us about decorum.


Some Hon. Members:: Hush.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's a joke.


Dave Nickerson: The public committee rooms in the Parliament Buildings ought not to be desecrated in this manner. I would ask that you require the offending Party to remove such partisan and unparliamentary material.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should simply say that that is not a point of order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to inform the House that the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, which is meeting in Paris this week, has approved, literally just a few moments ago, the nomination of the historic district of Quebec, essentially old Quebec, to the World Heritage list as a site of outstanding universal value.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: This prestigious national distinction is shared by only a few sites around the world, among them the Egyptian pyramids, the Versailles Palace, the Vatican, the Taj Mahal, the Statue of Liberty and the Grand Canyon, to mention but a number of examples.
In a nutshell, the designation means that the 87 countries around the world that participate in the relevant convention are committed to preserving, through international co-operation, the cultural and natural marvels recognized to be of exceptional universal value. For Canada, then, and for Quebec in particular, the designation to which I have made reference makes this a special day.

I am sure that all Members will join me in congratulating Mayor Jean Pelletier and the people of Quebec City on this international recognition of our heritage.

One of the many benefits of the designation, including the more aesthetic benefits, is that it makes Quebec eligible to call upon international support for the conservation of the cultural and architectural richness of that splendid city. Before we even give consideration to calling upon that support 1 think we should set the example ourselves within Canada and Quebec by continuing to preserve that richness in a spirit of appreciation for what we have been bequeathed by previous generations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition, I am very pleased to congratulate the Mayor of Quebec City and all the citizens of the "Vieille Capitale", and we find it very gratifying that UNESCO has recognized the heritage value of Quebec's Historic District. What generations of Quebecers have learned to appreciate will now gain international renown, and around the world people will be able to appreciate the beauty of this city. The people of Quebec City may be justly proud of the honour bestowed on them today, and we are delighted to add our congratulations to those expressed by the Minister.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) for calling the attention of the House to this important announcement.

On behalf of my party, I want to congratulate UNESCO for designating the historic district of Quebec as a site of outstanding universal value. By giving the City of Quebec international recognition, UNESCO has recognized the historical significance of that city and its inhabitants. It is one more
December 3, 1985

reason for all Quebecers to be proud of their city and their cultural heritage.
I therefore extend my sincere congratulations to the people of Quebec City.


PETITIONS
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 270 constituents of the riding of Saint-Maurice-not St. Moritz-I should like to present a petition.
The petitioners humbly state their belief that any society must share responsibilities with respect to children and that the principle of universality must be maintained.
Wherefore the petitioners humbly call upon the House of Commons to support the immediate withdrawal of Bill C-70 aimed at de-indexing family allowances.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present three petitions from different parts of Canada. These petitions are continuing to come in in great numbers every day. My first petition is from the machinists' union local 2315 from Ontario, imploring people to help save baby bonus indexing. They ask the House of Commons to reinstate the full indexation of the universal family allowance and rescind unfair tax increases.
My second petition comes from Halifax, Nova Scotia. The petition states that the undersigned oppose Bill C-70 because it will deindex child benefits and take money from low income women and children.
My third petition, which comes from my riding of Vancouver East is particularly interesting. Every signature is either that of a Vietnamese or of a Chinese citizen of that area. I believe it shows how much new immigrants care about these programs and the cut-backs that will affect their families. They also ask to have the fully indexed family allowance reinstated and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, we know that one in five children in this country lives in poverty. It is for this reason that I am most pleased to present petitions in the House on behalf of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) calling upon the Government to rescind its unfair deindexation of family allowance and child tax credits, particularly because it deals with the critical issue of poverty of children and single-parent families.
I also have a petition from Hochelaga which again outlines the difficulties, as we have seen in the newspapers, of people lining up at food banks and single parents trying to feed their children on the family allowance cheque which the Government is cutting back. I urge the Government, on behalf of these petitioners and hundreds of people in this county and
Petitions
thousands across the country, to retract its unfair cut-backs on family allowances.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of British Columbian residents of Kelowna, Comox, Surrey, Vancouver, Burnaby, Dawson Creek, Penticton, Terrace, Kamloops, Fort St. John, Charlie Lake and other places. All of them draw to the attention of the Government the fact that they are dissatisfied with its decision to deindex family allowance payments. They ask the Government to reinstate full indexation of all universal family allowances and to rescind the unfair tax increases which were incorporated in the last budget speech.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of the City of Halifax who, along with many other Canadians, appear not to have given up on the Government. They are still trying to get the Government to change its mind. I am glad that these petitions continue to roll in. Perhaps they will finally have the appropriate effect.
These petitioners call upon the Government to reinstate full indexation of the family allowances and to roll back unfair tax increases.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present some petitions from my home City of Regina, Saskatchewan and others from Unity, Saskatchewan. These petitioners, as have many other Canadians across the country, call upon the Government to restore full indexation to family allowances. They also express their opposition to some of the inequities in the tax increases, particularly some of the tax breaks given to the wealthy. These petitioners join with other Canadians in opposing the cut-backs.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Shawinigan in the Province of Quebec. The undersigned urge the Prime Minister of Canada to restore full indexation of family allowances and of the child tax credit. They point out that cut-backs of $500 million will be made in family assistance if the Government does not reconsider this Budget measure.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have some petitions from residents of British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Ontario, regarding the Maritime Experimental Test Range at Nanoose Bay, British Columbia. They are worried that the process for testing radiation is not satisfactory. They say that the naval policy of the United States which neither denies nor confirms the presence of nuclear weapons on board U.S. vessels is unacceptable. They

December 3, 1985
Point of Order-Mr. Gauthier
call for a full public inquiry before the present Canada-United States agreement is renegotiated.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition from residents of Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands. They protest the Government's attempt to cut back on the indexation of family allowances, its unfair tax increases which will particularly affect low and middle-income people, and the tax breaks which are being given at the same time to the rich and well-to-do. They call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of the Province of Quebec who humbly ask for the full restoration of family allowances and the repeal of unfair tax increases.

1 also have the honour to place before the House petitions from the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba, from my riding and from other parts of eastern Ontario. These persons say that the cut-backs in family allowances are inequitable and unbearable in the face of budget hand-outs such as $500,000 in tax-free capital gains, greater deductions for high income recipients for RRSPs, billions in hand-outs to the oil companies, and the billion dollar bail-out of the banks. They demand the rescission of deindexation of the family allowances.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will appreciate my point of order. Today gives me an occasion to bring to the attention of the Chair one of the funny decisions which we took in respect of our new rules. When we have a statement by a Minister, according to Standing Order 46(7) it automatically triggers Standing Order 19(4), which gives Members of Parliament an adjournment debate. Since we have a recorded vote tonight, we were not to have a "Late Show". However, since a Minister made a statement, we will have a "Late Show". I just wanted to ensure that Hon. Members knew that we were entitled to a "Late Show" tonight, so that they would get their names on the list for it. Let us review the rules so that we at least have some logic as to when we have "Late Shows" and when we do not have them.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is absolutely correct; there will be a "Late Show".
This gives me the opportunity to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, consideration of Government Orders will be extended by five minutes this day.



MANAGEMENT AND MEMBERS' SERVICES


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I move that the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services, presented to the House on Friday, November 29, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Broadbent:
That this House condemns the Government for abandoning the Canadian Aerospace Industry through the sale of de Havilland Aircraft Ltd. to the Boeing Corporation and for its consequent failure to protect the aerospace technology paid for by Canadian taxpayers and developed by de Havilland.
And the amendment thereto of Mr. Kaplan:
That the motion be amended by deleting the period at the end of the sentence and adding the following:
"and further condemns the Government's lack of confidence in the capacity of Canadians to maintain the country's sovereignty in the aerospace industry".
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) rises on questions or comments.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the last speaker. Considering some of the points raised in Question Period and the need to have some scrutiny of just what studies assisted the Government in making this decision, does the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) have any
December 3, 1985

ideas on where this matter might be referred to or whether it should be referred to a committee? If so, what kind of committee should it be and what might its terms of reference include?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would comment by saying it should be either the Standing Committee on Finance or the Standing Committee which deals with regional industrial expansion. Certainly they would be logical places where this particular deal could be and should be reviewed, not after the agreement with Boeing is signed, sealed and delivered, but beforehand.
There are some real options at which 1 think the House should look. It may be that in end the Government's majority will prevail, but I think Canadians expect Parliament to look at something as important as this matter because of the implications for the future of the aerospace industry and because of the enormous amount of taxpayers' money which has gone into and will go into de Havilland.
Perhaps I could share with my hon. friend the estimates which we have. It is indicated that $65 million of the sale price is a deferred portion. An additional $30 million is a commitment from the Government of Canada because of the Crown share of product liability insurance. The tax loss carried forward-and this is a loss which has already been paid for by taxpayers-is $400 million. That is like real money as far as Boeing is concerned. A further $65 million is allocated because the Crown, through the Defence Industry Productivity Program, will share in development costs for the new Dash-8. Finally, $30 million to $40 million is expected to be paid in subsidies for export financing of de Havilland products. That approaches $550 million. That is what we are paying to Boeing for it to pay us $155 million on this particular deal.
In conclusion, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) was quite explicit in saying that because of cabinet scrutiny and the review which would take place in the House, it was unnecessary for Investment Canada to look at this particular deal. That was in December, 1984. If that was good enough then, I suggest that it is good enough now. I take it that the comments of the Hon. House Leader mean that the Government is now taking actively into consideration that kind of review. My Party and I intend to press for that kind of review in Parliament or in a committee.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I was a bit disappointed with that response. I was assuming that my friend would also have a great deal of concern with regard to what this might mean in terms of aerospace technology development in Canada. I wonder if the Hon. Member would elaborate in some detail so that we would have an indication whether he feels that the matter of technological implication in the decision ought also to be referred to the committee.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the technology is there. I am not satisfied that the guarantees given by Boeing are bankable in any way. If Boeing says that it wants to withdraw the world
Supply
product mandate from commuter aircraft being built in Canada and goes to the Minister looking for his approval, what will the Minister do? They will put a gun to his head and say that they are either going to shut it down or take it back to Seattle, leaving us a few bits and pieces to be made in Toronto. That is the kind of deal they would bring, Mr. Speaker, and that is the kind of thing we fear. I think that should be explored in a committee of the House very soon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now terminated. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) on debate.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in this very important debate, particularly as it relates to an indusry which I believe is important to all Canadians. Approximately a year ago, shortly after the federal election, the Conservative Government, with great haste, announced to the Parliament and the people of Canada its desire and intention to sell a number of Canadian-owned Crown corporations. One corporation which was talked about at great length was de Havilland of Canada Limited. In fact, in numerous utterances in this House, in press releases, and in various statements made by Ministers of the Crown the Government's desire to unload this Canadian Crown corporation was emphasized. However, there were no restrictions or limitations as to who might be the purchaser of this Crown corporation.
The sale price of $155 million for this particular Crown corporation is worth noting and deserves careful consideration by all Members of Parliament. Boeing will pay $155 million; $90 million in cash and $65 million in a note repayable over 15 years. There are some other facts which I think ought to be read into the record. For each $5 million of new orders to Canadian suppliers $1 million will be cut from the amount which is outstanding. Second, Ottawa will pay part of any increases in de Havilland's liability insurance for all its planes now flying. This can cut the purchase price by some $30 million according to the Chairman of the CDIC.
In addition, Boeing will be allowed to carry forward de Havilland's losses for tax purposes but has agreed to use the benefit only for lending moneys to Canadian buyers of de Havilland's planes. This can cut the purchase price by $400 million according to the Chairman of a competitor, Rimgate. Boeing will pay a royalty of a specified amount on all sales of models developed by de Havilland. Finally, Boeing will benefit from all available federal programs including the loans the Government now provides to support sales of Dash-7s and Dash-8s.
That is the sale price, Mr. Speaker. On one side of the ledger there is $155 million and on the other side the Government of Canada is investing in excess of $700 million. Its assets today at market value would be in excess of $300 million, plus the added features which were attached to the agreement in small print with regard to the benefits under the Income Tax Act and the carrying forward of certain liabilities thereto. The sale price is $155 million. It can be argued and

December 3, 1985
Supply
substantiated that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has now put Canada up for sale and the price is a meagre $155 million for this Crown corporation.
There was an argument advanced many months ago by members of the Opposition about prudent and competent managers of the economy. The evidence which has been adduced thus far does not prove to a reasonable individual that it would be prudent and competent for Canadians to be involved in this deal. Perhaps at some time in the near future the memorandum of understanding signed by de Havilland and Boeing will clarify for Members of Parliament and the Canadian people exactly what the bargaining position of the Government of Canada was with relation to this particular subject matter.
de Havilland is a good company. It has a world product mandate. Why would a multinational corporation like Boeing not want to pick up de Havilland for $155 million? Those in the private sector would say that this is the private sector at its best, it is cherry picking. They take that which is the best and leave that which is not. They cannot lose in this deal, Mr. Speaker, de Havilland will build the Dash-7 and Dash-8. Why else would Boeing want to buy this particular company? Boeing knows a quality product even if the Government of Canada does not.
With the deregulation of the airline industry the Dash-7 and Dash-8, short take off and landing aircraft, are about to come into their own displacing many jets built by Boeing. It only makes sense that an American company would buy out the competition. To date de Havilland has 117 orders for its Dash-8 aircraft. The Government allowed the Canadian people to accept all the risk over the past ten years and has now handed an American company the opportunity for profits which rightly belong, not to the Government of Canada, but to the people of Canada.
This is a tragedy in that it can be argued successfully that it is comparable to the 1959 Avro Arrow situation. There was a large Conservative majority Government involved in that particular decision which affected Canadian industry. Canadians saw a wealth of technology along with individuals with ideas and expertise migrate to the United States, thus becoming the real substance behind the American thrust to have a man on the moon. I do not know where this trip will lead us, Mr. Speaker, but I suggest that the selling of de Havilland at this point in time without the necessary qualifications is not good for Canada. It is not good for the workers and it is certainly not good for the Canadian economy.
What about consultation, Mr. Speaker? In the Throne Speech, the budget, and subsequent speeches by Members opposite, we heard about consultation. Did the Government consult with the United Auto Workers? Did the Government do, as the Prime Minister would say, the honourable thing by consulting with the workers involved? No, it did not.
Did the Government consult with the Ontario Government? According to Premier Peterson's office, the Government of
Ontario has received two communications from the Government of Canada concerning the de Havilland takeover. One was an acknowledgement of a request made by the Government of Ontario well over a year ago to be consulted on the possibility of a de Havilland sale. I regret to report that the second one occurred last Friday at the First Ministers' Conference in Halifax. At that time, officials of the Ontario Government were told that the deed was done.
What happened to the claim of the Prime Minister that co-operative federalism is here? Why was there no meaningful consultation with the Ontario Government? Why was there no consultation with the United Auto Workers? The critics will argue that it was to provide a sweetheart deal to Boeing. There was no consultation because the Government wanted to circumvent every possible concern and objection regarding this particular transfer so that it could be put in the hands of Boeing.
There was a press conference at which the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) made a statement. He talked about a memorandum of understanding. Where is that memorandum of understanding? For a time, the President of the Treasury Board argued in the House that jobs would be increased in de Havilland. Where are the figures? Where is the documentation which would allow Canadians to view for themselves the investment intentions of Boeing? We have seen no memorandum of understanding.
Of course, Government Members have the answers. They say that there are a few details yet to be decided upon and once they are decided upon they will table the document. It may be many, many months before the people of Canada will really know what has transpired. Then, unfortunately, it will be too late.
During Question Period today and in the speeches of Hon. Members who have preceded me, there has been mention of job guarantees. Approximately 4,500 Canadians are employed with de Havilland. There has been not one word in the documents provided by the Minister on jobs guarantees. The tragedy of that is that the Government has demonstrated in other areas of the Canadian economy-I will not talk about the banks, the multinational oil companies or anything of that nature-that it does not have the business acumen or prudence required to assure that workers in Canada will be protected as a result of this takeover.
It is very evident that in this particular agreement between de Havilland and Boeing, nothing has been mentioned about job guarantees. I stand to be corrected on this and 1 hope I can be corrected on it. However, until such time as 1 see the memorandum of understanding and the documents that have been exchanged by the two companies, I must conclude the very obvious: there are no job guarantees for Canadians in the transfer of de Havilland to Boeing.
What about the technology transfer? Boeing has recognized that Canadians have developed a superb technology, a technology which will be able to take advantage of a market which I believe, though I am not an expert, will open up significantly in the next number of years. We have provided an American
December 3, 1985

company with a certain amount of goodwill. The Prime Minister has said that Canada is open for business. Ele just sold it right off for a song.
What about research and development? Were any financial guarantees included in the documents that were provided? No, Mr. Speaker. Was there mention made of the percentage of research and development that would have to be done in Canada? No, there was none whatsoever. There has been no financial commitment and no commitment with regard to the percentage of research and development that ought to be done in Canada by Canadians for Canadians.
The argument that some of us have made and will continue to make is that we are transferring to the United States technology, individuals and brainpower without even protecting here in Canada something that we have developed and on which we have spent millions of millions of taxpayers' dollars. I believe that is shameful.
Perhaps Members of Parliament are asking of the Government something that it is impossible for it to do. Perhaps this request of Government Members and particularly the Cabinet is something with which they cannot comply. Perhaps other countries in the world cannot restrict foreign control. In the United States Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U.S. Code, Section 1301, Subsections 3 and 16 indicate that Boeing is allowed to do something in Canada that it is not allowed to do in the United States. Boeing is classfied as being vital to the aviation sector of the American economy and consequently is not allowed to sell any more than 25 per cent of its interests to a foreign Government. What happens in Canada? The Prime Minister, that great vocalist, travels to Washington and New York, sings a song for the President of the United States and tells Boeing to come on over to get 100 per cent of a Canadian Crown corporation without any restrictions whatsoever. How are Canadians protected from this takeover? There is not one iota of protection.
Neither the Prime Minister, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) nor the President of the Treasury Board have placed Canadian interests first. What we are pointing out to Government Members is not something which is completely alien to all western democracies. In the United States, there are restrictions on industries that are vital to the economy. I suggest that this particular sector of the Canadian economy is vital and that there ought to have been restrictions in place with regard to the selling of de Havilland to the Boeing Corporation.
The Government has carried on in such a way that one cannot believe what it says any longer. The Prime Minister says one thing and does the opposite. He reassures Canadians, yet he taketh away. In New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, he said that we ought to increase transfer payments. He told the First Ministers that he did not say that and that he meant something else. On August 17, 1984 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) promised to turn Canadair Limited and de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd. into separate Crown corporations to develop new products in the aerospace industry. That is what the Minister of Finance said with a great deal of integrity.
Supply
On April 12, 1984 the Prime Minister said that Canadians should put no more money into Canadair or de Havilland until a parliamentary committee takes a good look at the future prospects of both firms. On February 23, 1984, in Toronto, the Prime Minister promised the creation of a joint Senate and House of Commons committee on Crown corporations with the mandate and resources to undertake effective reviews of individual corporations. I do not want to call my Prime Minister a liar. That is not my intention.


Mr. Kilgour:: It is unparliamentary.


David Charles Dingwall: The Hon. Member is correct, it is unparliamentary. I take great pride in saying that my Prime Minister does not lie. However, when constituents confront me and place before me statements which have been made by the Prime Minister and when they argue very forcefully that he has lied, it is difficult to say that they are incorrect. I want to give the Prime Minister and his Minister an opportunity to correct this-


David Kilgour: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the utmost respect, I suggest that the Hon. Member is attempting to do indirectly what the rules bar him from doing directly. If that is the case I think he should be stopped immediately from following that tack.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think he is treading a fine line. However, his time has expired. I regret that he is finished, as far as I am concerned, that is, as far as his time is concerned. Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).


Mr. Marchi:: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in listening to the comments of the previous speaker. I think other Members will join me in saying that the speech which was just delivered was not only an emotional plea but a plea based on facts. I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he can perhaps wrap up his discussion, the one which he was about to wrap up, so that he may draw his conclusions to the facts he has just presented to the House.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I take note of your last comment about my being finished. I will be brief.
1 wish to say to the Hon. Member that a point has to be made that the Prime Minister and the Government will have every opportunity to correct the injustices or, indeed, the misquotes which have been made by Hon. Members on this side of the House. They will be able to stand in their places and say that there will be a joint parliamentary committee established to review this particular takeover. The Minister of Finance will be able to stand in his place and say that he did not mean to say what he said, if he admits that he purposefully misled the Canadian people. The Prime Minister may also stand in his place and say that, perhaps, a parliamentary committee will take a good look at the future prospects of both these firms, if he agrees to that particular proposal. I am sure these matters can be resolved. Therefore, the disposition which

December 3, 1985
Supply
constituents may have throughout the country will be dispelled. Unfortunately, if the opposite is true, and there is no parliamentary committee established as offered by the Prime Minister, or if there is a holding-back with regard to the sale of de Havilland, perhaps Canadians will continue to believe, as they have echoed to me, the concerns which they have with regard to their Prime Minister. Frankly, I hope that those constituents of mine and electors throughout the country who hold the view which the Hon. Member opposite finds to be unparliamentary, as I do, will have an opportunity to hear the Ministers rectify the situation.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member indicated that constituents in his riding have come to him to complain about what he alleges to be a change of policy by the Prime Minister. Will the Hon. Member be kind enough to place on the record the names of these constituents? If he does not wish to do that, then will he be kind enough to tell us how many there are? Will he tell us whether they are male or female or if he remembers anything about them? While the Hon. Member is doing that, would he be kind enough to tell Hon. Members whether he accepts the estimate of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) with respect to de Havilland having to spend $200 million of taxpayers' money next year? Just how much does he and members of the bottomless Party of which he is a member think we should put into de Havilland before we place it on a commercially sound basis, as indicated by the President of the Treasury Board?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite is known for throwing lob balls across the House. I thank him for this opportunity to respond.
With regard to the number of individuals who have confronted me, there have been numerous individuals. 1 am not prepared to release their names, not at all. Letters which are written to me in confidence as a Member of Parliament will remain confidential. No Member of Parliament, no matter how two-bit he may be in his role as a Government Member, can force me to breach a commitment which I have established with my constituents and other electors across the country no matter what he does or tries to do.


David Kilgour: How many?


David Charles Dingwall: We know that if names are provided what Members opposite will probably do. I am not suggesting they would harrass these people but it would probably be the next best thing. The numbers which are involved-


David Kilgour: How many?


David Charles Dingwall: I would say a couple of hundred.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Kilgour: Male or female?


David Charles Dingwall: The Hon. Member seems to be somewhat sexist. He wants to know the particular sex of the complainants. I do not think that is any of his business. The fact of the
matter is that Canadians do not believe the Prime Minister and they have ample evidence to substantiate that feeling, whether it comes from deindexation, the setting-up of a joint commitment with respect to de Havilland, the bail-out of the banks or a host of issues about which the Prime Minister has misled the Canadian people. If the Hon. Member wants more, all he has to do is check the transcript of the First Ministers Conference in which he will see Premier after Premier stating that the Prime Minister unilaterally broke his commitment with regard to transfer payments. If that is not misleading Canadians, then I do not know what is.


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) did not quite finish off his question. He asked the Hon. Member opposite how much the Canadian public should have to spend and he indicated that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) said that next year it will be $200 million or more. At what point does the Hon. Member feel we should stop? Should we stop when we hit a figure such as a couple of billion dollars? What figure does the Hon. Member have in his mind?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, certainly the moneys which have been expended with regard to the $500,000 capital gains exemption ought not to have gone through. Certainly, the billions of dollars which were provided for the bail-out of two banks and the billions of dollars which have been provided-


James Eber Caldwell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am just answering the Hon. Member's question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell) on a point of order.


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Hon. Member a direct question and I think I am entitled to a direct answer. At what point should we stop, as far as putting public money into saving companies such as de Havilland?


David Charles Dingwall: As I said, and I am coming to the point, billions of dollars have gone toward the multinational oil companies. Preferential tax treatment has been given to certain companies in the country. That amounts to billions of dollars of waste. We do not hear anything from Hon. Members opposite with regard to that point.
With particular reference to de Havilland, we would like to see the memorandum of understanding with regard to this particular corporation vis-a-vis job creation which will take place as a result of this so-called new investment by Boeing, whether it is in the order of $200 million or $300 million. 1 cannot tell the Hon. Member because the facts have not been provided by the Government. Hence the need and the rationale to have a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to review all of these things so that we will have a better opportunity to answer questions which the Hon. Member will have and he, in turn, can intelligently answer his
December 3, 1985

constituents who are as concerned as mine with regard to the sale of de Havilland to the Boeing Corporation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now terminated. Resuming debate.


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak against the motion which is before the House today and to support the sale of de Havilland. I am fortunate that there are several aerospace manufacturers in my riding of Winnipeg-St. James, such companies as Bristol Aerospace, Standard Aero and Boeing of Winnipeg. I can tell you, Sir, that, as a professional engineer, 1 am also concerned that the technology developed in Canada within the aerospace industry be preserved and expanded. 1 am confident that with the purchase of de Havilland by Boeing, we will see that objective achieved.
I found it interesting this morning when the Leader of the New Democratic Party rose to speak about a sale of a Crown corporation. In fact, if you were in the House at that time, Mr. Speaker, you would have heard me ask a question with regard to what his stance was in Manitoba because 1 feel it is important that Hon. Members who are not from Manitoba recognize what the policy of the New Democratic Party in Manitoba is as compared to the policy of the same Party in the House of Commons. As we all know, the basic social philosophy of the New Democratic Party is that the Government should own businesses and employ people. It is odd that when that Party is in Opposition it expounds on how good companies are which are Government owned and how they are useful to social programs. However, I would like to cite my experiences in Manitoba with respect to Crown owned corporations when we had a Schreyer Government as well as a Howard Pawley Government.
We had experiences with Saunders aircraft which cost the taxpayers of Manitoba S40 million before the then Ed Schreyer Government decided it should close it down, realizing that the taxpayers of Manitoba had supported this Crown corporation to the fullest extent it could. That amount of money does not sound as much as the $800 million we are talking about here, but when one considers Manitoba has a population of one million people, one can readily see it is an amount equivalent, in Canada as a whole, of $1 billion.
We have had bad experiences in Manitoba with Chinese food manufacturers which the Government owned and then closed down. What has happened now is that the NDP Government in Manitoba has done a complete flip in its philosophy that Government should have Crown-owned corporations when it comes to Flyer Industries. Flyer Industries is a manufacturer of buses. I would like to quote what the present Government of Manitoba has said. In June of this year Hon. Eugene Kostyra, the Minister who is responsible for Crown corporations, made a statement in committee that he was going to sell Flyer Industries this year and if he did not, he would close it down. But where was the Minister of the NDP Government last month? He was in the Netherlands trying to
Supply
sell Flyer Industries, a Crown corporation, to a foreign company. The NDP opposition in the House of Commons have made a complete about-face of 180 degrees. It wants to retain a Crown corporation. It is protesting that we should not sell de Havilland to private industry, or what it calls a "multinational".
1 would ask Hon. Members of the Manitoba-NDP caucus at the federal level if they have talked to their colleagues in Manitoba. What has been said about selling Flyer Industries? Have they raised any objections to this, particularly the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)? Flyer Industries is right in his riding. Those Hon. Members rise and protest that we are doing the wrong thing when in Manitoba their own NDP Government is trying to do the same thing we are doing.
I can tell you why, Mr. Speaker. It is because of the fact that when a Party becomes the Government it finds all of a sudden it cannot afford the haemorrhaging of taxpayers' money which Crown corporations cause. 1 call it "haemorrhaging" because that is exactly what it is. I sat around a Cabinet table in Manitoba arguing for money for mental rehabilitation programs. We were refused. We were told the Government had to put the money into the support of Flyer Industries or some other Crown corporations. That is exactly what is happening here. The taxpayers' money which is going to these Crown corporations is being stolen from these other programs which are needed by our taxpayers.
I hope that the New Democratic Party will recognize that we are in no different position from their colleagues in Manitoba who are trying to sell Flyer Industries. The haemorrhaging has to be stopped. How long can we continue to pump millions and millions of dollars into these particular Crown corporations only to see them lose money?
What really hurts in any industry such as Flyer Industries in Manitoba is the fact that when the manufacturer makes a product which is sold outside its provincial boundaries or its country, and if it is being sold at a loss, the taxpayers of that province or the country subsidize the transit systems in other places such as Chicago and San Francisco. Every time Flyer Industries sells a bus, it gives a $92,000 contribution to one of those transit companies. I do not know what the figure is when de Havilland sells an aeroplane, but, obviously, if we have pumped $800 million into that company and it has had a $76 million loss last year and has already lost $55 million this year, when we export its product, we are subsidizing an airline industry in another part of the world. 1 say that it is time to stop and the sale to Boeing will stop that because Boeing will be responsible for any losses.
When it is argued that Boeing will get all of the grants, it can be argued that de Havilland gets all those grants now. Nothing has changed except that de Havilland has a $55 million loss this year which will be the responsibility of Boeing next year. 1 believed that should be drawn to the attention of the Opposition because it will not accept the fact that the Boeing company will pick up any losses which occur.

December 3, 1985
Supply
I would like to comment on Boeing Winnipeg because I think it is important to explain to the House of Commons why I have confidence that Boeing will keep its word. My acquaintance with Boeing goes back some 15 years. I was on the St. James Assiniboia Council at the time when Boeing approached us and said it would like to locate in our city. The City of St. James sold Boeing 126 acres of prime industrial land in a west end industrial area. It was the first to go in there. We were naturally concerned about a company from the United States perhaps taking advantage of Canadians. We were concerned that it would perhaps purchase 126 acres and when it got the acreage it would subdivide it, sell it and make a profit and then pay for its buildings and so on. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Boeing has not done that. Boeing in Winnipeg developed a plant which employed 57 people in 1971. It expanded to employ 300 employees by 1973. It then continued to expand its technology in the space industry and is now presently employing 650 people. I could not believe what I heard yesterday in the press conference of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). I would think that a former Minister of Transport would know what is happening in his City of Winnipeg. He made the statement that Boeing makes bathtubs. Do you know when Boeing stopped making bathtubs? Two years ago. That is how up-to-date the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry is on what is happening in the transportation industry in Winnipeg.
At one time there was no space technology, no manufacturing of specialized plastic and fibreglass components for this industry in Winnipeg. Boeing developed that technology and brought it to Canada. That plant is now supplying components for the 757 and 767 Boeing aircraft. Second generation aircraft components are being built in Winnipeg using technology developed in Canada with the guidance of that company's U.S. engineering department. It is also developing specialized tooling and fabrication. The company is doing work on satellites. The Opposition is talking about a flow of technology out of Canada but I suggest that there will be a growth of technology in Canada. I am quite confident about that.
The Hon. Member left the impression that all Boeing did was build bathtubs. He downgraded a very important industry in Winnipeg and a very good corporate citizen. To give an idea of the kind of employer they are, there are about 1,065 Canadians working for Boeing in Canada. 1 had a chance to talk to the president of Boeing this morning. I asked him how many Americans his company employed to run the show in Canada. His answer? Zero. They are all Canadians, Canadian engineers and workers. The Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broad-bent) talked about wrapping the stars and stripes around de Havilland. However, everyone who works for Boeing in Canada is a Canadian. He should check his facts before he starts making statements like that. There has also been all this talk about multinationals. Do you know where Boeing has its factories? In the United States and Canada. That is all. I did not know that a multinational operated in only two countries. What we are getting with Boeing is a corporate citizen which
is interested in Canada and Canadians. To give an example, the unused part of their plant site in Winnipeg contains a herd of deer which the company feeds all year round. The company also allows its employees to have garden plots at the plant if they want to make use of them. This is the kind of corporate citizen which has bought de Havilland.
The last speaker made a statement with regard to the quality of the product they produce. I think we all agree that de Havilland makes several damn good aircraft. However, you can make the best pump or the best aircraft in the world but if you do not have the marketing ability, you end up with a yard full of pumps or a hangar full of aircraft. That is what happened to Saunders Aircraft. It did not have a world-wide marketing ability. The aircraft industry is a very unique industry. Millions and millions of dollars are involved when buying a fleet of aircraft, whether it be two, three or whatever. You expect to get a least 25 or 30 years life out of an aircraft. You want the parts to be available when you need them. You want the guarantees when you need them. Boeing brings that to de Havilland. de Havilland has the product quality and Boeing has a world-wide reputation for providing a guaranteed product and making sure parts are always available.
When Boeing expanded its plant in Winnipeg in 1979, I asked the then vice-president what the value was of the company's total sales of aircraft world-wide. His answer was $8.3 billion. That tells me that if we get Boeing operating de Havilland it will apply its expertise to reduce the cost of manufacturing. It will apply its marketing ability and supply the confidence the buyer wants. We will see an excellent relationship between these two companies. I am confident that the technology will stay in Canada and grow. I am confident the other Boeing plants in Canada will expand as well. We will have a wider market and more jobs. Our main objective is to have sound stable jobs in this industry and further expansion of technological development. For those reasons I am opposed to the motion and I support the sale of de Havilland.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member claims this company is to be sold off because of its deficit position. Can he tell me what the paper deficit was as shown in the annual report for 1984, as well as the real deficit?


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sorry that 1 do not have those exact figures in front of me. However, I do know that the taxpayers of Canada, under the former Government, popped in some $700 million to support this company. In addition, the company qualified for various grants available to the industry at that time. As well, the 1984 operating loss was $76 million and so far this year it is $55 million. To keep the company solvent and operating would require another $200 million. These are taxpayers' dollars. If we can turn the company around, put it into a profitable position so it can employ people who will pay income tax, and if it is run by Canadians, what is the difference? If we have the control of the technology and we
December 3, 1985

no longer have to make up the losses for that company, then 1 say we have something good.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member obviously does not understand the role of foreign multinationals. In fact, we do not have control and that is the whole issue. Control will be sold to a foreign multinational at a fire-sale price as a direct result of this Government's obsession with privatization. In 1984 there was an income of $11.3 million on sales of $192 million. Does he agree with or dispute those figures for the 1984 fiscal year at de Havilland?


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, I presume the Hon. Member has not included the overhead and other things, that she is just referring to a gross sales profit. All these things have to be taken into account when you look at the balance sheet.
Apparently the Hon. Member did not support the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) in his bid for the leadership of the Liberal Party. In The Globe and Mail of April 9, 1984, he is quoted as saying that Canadair and de Havilland should also be sold provided that there is no loss in jobs or technological development. I suggest there is no loss in jobs or technological development, and I presume the Hon. Member did not support that person as leader.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, over the years I have seen the consequences for our country of foreign ownership. Sometimes there are some benefits but sometimes there are also losses. Often in a recession the foreign-owned company will lay off people in the Canadian plant or transfer people from our country to their head office along with R and D to the U.S. I want to ask three very specific questions of the Member. Is there any guarantee whatsoever that would stop de Havilland from siphoning off the best Canadian brains in this industry to the U.S. along with research and development? What guarantees are there that that will not happen? Second, what guarantees do we have that money will be ploughed back into Canada for research and development if Boeing buys this corporation? What guarantees do we have that the best brains in the industry will not eventually go to the United States to Boeing's head office operations and that there will be R and D in this country?


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, all that I can say is that for some reason the New Democratic Party always mistrust anyone who is successful in industry. I do not know whether the Hon. Member was listening to my comments earlier but my experience with Boeing in Winnipeg shows that the reverse is true. That company kept investing money in our community and in the Province of Manitoba. It has expanded the job population. It has not transferred the engineers to Boeing in Seattle. It has hired Canadian engineers and has used Canadians to run the plants and do the design work. It has brought technology here and has developed new technology in tooling to handle the new second generation aircraft. I am basing my comments on what I have seen in Winnipeg. I cannot comment
Supply
on other companies that the Hon. Member believes might do the reverse.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) is relying on good intentions and the record of the company. Does he not think it would be wise that before we sell de Havilland to Boeing we write in some guarantees that there be no transfer of technology and that a certain amount of research and development be carried out in this country? Should we not have some contract guarantees with Boeing of the United States before we sell the company? Since every industry faces ups and downs, should we not have guarantees perhaps similar to the auto pact so that if there are lay-offs Canadians will not be the first to go? Should we not have those kinds of guarantees written into the sales agreement? My question specifically refers to job guarantees in Canada and research and development in Canada. It could be the best company in the world with all the best intentions, but if there is a recession, human nature being what it is, the company will protect its home base.


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member has not had a chance to read the Government Information summary of the letter of intent from the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. With respect to Canadian content/supplier development, it states:
de Havilland will seek to increase the level of Canadian content in its products, and will work with the Canadian suppliers to secure major contracts especially related to defence production.
Under research and development, it states:
The de Havilland capacity for research and development activity will be maintained and enhanced.
Under new investment, it states:
Boeing owned de Havilland will undertake significant new investment in the Dash-8 and production facilities, and will develop the new 50 seat version of the Dash-8. These projects are expected to qualify for repayable support under the Defence Industries Productivity Program.
The new investment confirms Boeing's long range commitment to de Havilland and is expected to enable de Havilland to become a major participant in new international and Canadian projects.


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short comment. The Hon. Member has certainly raised the level of debate in the House. I believe the New Democratic Party should withdraw the motion because I do not think it is very valid after listening to the Hon. Member's speech.
There has been much criticism of the Americans from Members of the Opposition. There are several American corporations in my riding which have turned out to be good corporate citizens. The Hon. Member said that Boeing is a good corporate citizen in Winnipeg. Does he believe that the employees to whom he has talked feel any less Canadian by working for Boeing Winnipeg?


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not talked to any employees in the last day or two other than the President of Boeing, who is a Canadian. The people whom I know who work for Boeing in Winnipeg look at it as Boeing Winnipeg.

December 3, 1985
Supply
They do not consider it as a United States operated company, because it is operated by Canadians.
They have the benefit of many good working conditions. 1 did not mention that Boeing Winnipeg received commendation from the Manitoba Human Rights Commission for its program of hiring hearing impaired employees. Furthermore, when there is an increase in staff, it hires young people who have not been employed before. This is the type of operation that Boeing conducts in Winnipeg.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the comments made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker). I have visited the Boeing plants in my riding many times. Many of the employees live in our particular ridings. The hundreds of employees from Manitoba and Winnipeg do not consider Boeing as a devious, scheming organization that is out to steal technology or anything else from Canada.
I want to ask the Member about all the other businesses in which the NDP Government became involved in Manitoba that ended up an absolute flop. When the Conservative Government sold them, I understand they were quite successful. They survived and hired more people and I understand there was a better quality Chinese food put out when they were handed over to the private sector.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now terminated.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 must say that 1 am tempted to begin by talking about socialist Chinese food in Winnipeg. It seems to weigh heavily on the mind of my colleague across the aisle.
I believe the time of the House would be more valuably taken by focusing on the issue itself, which is not whether there are good subsidiaries. I can say quite frankly that there are some excellent foreign subsidiaries in my constituency which contribute greatly to this country. I have just written a letter of welcome to one of those subsidiaries which we have been able to persuade to come from West Germany to make a contribution to economic development in Essex-Windsor.
The question we are considering is whether it makes sense to be selling good, solid technologically dynamic Canadian companies, when we already have so few in our economy, especially at a giveaway price which will eventually be an expense to taxpayers. The Government will have to face this question when it goes back to the electorate in three years. It will have to face the fact that there is a commitment in this country to Canadianization of the economy.
I have indicated to the House before that statistics from polling undertaken by Decima Research Ltd. indicates clearly that 85 per cent of Canadians want to see legislation to encourage greater Canadian ownership of industry. They want to see a greater presence of Canadians in the business community, rather than a sell-out of those flagships of Canadian industrial progress which already exist.
However, that is exactly what has taken place under the Conservative Government. Instead of Canadianization of our economy, the Government clearly believes in its Americanization. I had hoped that the Government's record in its first six months of office would have been an aberration about which it would have some shame. Rather, it has continued to revel in the fact that it is creating a more Americanized and continentalized economy in which Canada is bound to become the appendage or ignored part of a North American economy that has been integrated by free trade and dominated by American corporations.
Again and again we have seen Ministers rise in the House to glorify the fact that good, solid Canadian corporations, some from the private sector and some from the public sector, are slipping into the hands of the United States. They have not apologized. They have not said that they were sorry that this was happening or that they did what they could to make things come together but it just did not work. Instead they have glorified it. The Americanization of the Canadian economy, under the direction of the Conservative Party, goes on in abject shame.
Let us look at what has happened. For instance, Mitel was sold to foreigners. In the case of White Farm, small-scaled, high-powered Canadian entrepreneurs in the private sector were trying to get it going in Brantford. We saw it sold out and given up by the Government. A workers' co-operative in Hamilton looked to Canadian Porcelain, a small company, to make a contribution to that community. It was sold out. That time it was sold out to the U.S. company which had put it in trouble in the first place by dumping into the country through systems of unfair trade. Also we had the case of Black & Decker, as well as the great epitome of American capitalization, the takeover of CGE in Barrie. The factory was shut down within a year. It shifted its operations, cut its employment and turned factories, which had contributed hundreds of jobs to people in Barrie for a generation, into ghost town warehouses. Also we had the fiasco with the Canada Development Corporation. Through all kinds of back-handed manoeuvres and actions before the House even had a chance to consider the matter, the Government allowed 25 per cent of a company which was important to our future to be sold to the United States. We have had no action on Prentice-Hall, a case which has been before us for over a year now. Canadian publishers want to purchase the company. They do not want to turn it into a socialist enterprise, God help us. They want to turn it into a privately held Canadian company which will contribute to the country. Again the Government has refused to move.
The black list or the sad story of Americanization under the Government goes on and on, with the last sorry story added to it now of de Havilland, a good and dynamic company, a company with exciting new products which it is succeeding in selling throughout the world. Now that company is to become one more trophy in the corporate shareholding list of the Boeing Corporation with its billions of dollars in sales, de Ha-
December 3, 1985

villand today, Canadair next, and the Canadian aircraft industry, as a Canadian-owned, Canadian-controlled industry with a sense of Canadian potential, will in fact go down the drain. It will be abandoned by the Government as it has abandoned so much of the key sectors of the economy to United States capital over the last 14 months.
It is especially dangerous to see this happening to the high-tech sectors of our economy. We as a country are not embarrassed by our riches in the high-tech sector. We do not have masses of Canadian-controlled companies making contributions and selling exports in that sector. We as a country have problems because we are small, because the risks are great and because the costs are high to create high-tech innovations. Yet, we have had our success stories. We have had our Mitels, our Northern Telecoms, and our de Havil-lands. Far too often the Government permits companies such as those to go down the drain, so far as being part of a Canadian core for high-technology growth in the future.
I should like to present to the House a segment of the report of the Ontario Government about what companies could make it under free trade. It indicates quite clearly that one sector which can make it under free trade, despite the intense competition it will have to face with the United States, could be our aircraft and aircraft parts manufacturers.
I will give the House a sense of how superbly that sector has done in terms of international trade. International trade is crucial for the future. In 1978, that sector of our economy in Ontario ran a trade deficit. Its exports amounted to about $174 million and its imports about $219 million. By 1984, its exports were up to $548 million, while its imports ran at $383 million. It is a success story built upon the very risks and the new product developments which have characterized de Havil-land, which should characterize de Havilland in the future and which would characterize it if it remained a Canadian company able to make its contribution to the economy.
It is tough. One cannot start a high-tech company overnight. It takes heavy investment. It takes high risks. It takes longtime horizons. In the case of de Havilland, it has taken over $800 million to put together two excellent, highly-innovative, new pieces of technology which are among the best in the world in their class-the Dash-7 and the Dash-8. Now, in 1985, as December is upon us, here comes Santa Claus to give it away. Here it comes, gift-wrapped in nice tinsel paper with a bright red or perhaps blue maple leaf on it, to be placed under the corporate Christmas tree of the Boeing Corporation, to be given away as a gift. It is the kind of gift which I used to receive as a child from my grandfather. I am sure that many Hon. Members in the Chamber received such gifts. It was a gift which not only included the gift itself but, when it was opened, there was $2 or $5 in it; a gift which gives something and some money as well.
This is a super grandpa's gift to the Boeing Corporation. It is a gift described by Boeing Corporation as costing no more than the price of one 747 aircraft. It is the gift of a company
Supply
that is making excellent operating profits. There have been some mis-statements made in this debate, but the fact of the matter is that income from operations of de Havilland for 1985 was almost $18 million in positive surplus. That is up from approximately $6 million the year before, so there has been a huge increase in operating profits. That increase was due to an increase from 19 to 27 in the number of planes sold. Boeing tells us that it expects to continue with this increase in operating profits. By the time the costs for research and development for the Dash-8 start to be paid off in a year or two the company is going to be making over-all profits rather than just operating profits.
There is money tucked into every possible little pocket of this magnificent gift. Let me list for the House some of the gift-wrapped envelopes of taxpayers' money which are included in this Christmas gift to Boeing Corporation. They get to defer $65 million of the sale price and probably will not have to pay it at all. That is not bad for Christmas, but that is just a start. Also included in the gift is the Crown's share of product liability insurance, worth $30 million and the development costs for the Dash-8 amounting to $65 million which will be paid by the taxpayers of the country and will go to the benefit of Boeing.
Surely it must make my back-bench colleagues in the Conservative Party, who care about fiscal rectitude, blush just a little bit to see this incredible, unjustified largesse to a foreign multinational company. Also included in the gift is export financing of $30 million to $40 million and, to top it off, a tax loss carry-forward of $400 million, not just to de Havilland but to all of Boeing in Canada. That is why the Winnipeg Boeing people are so pleased.
Do you realize what $400 million could do for the hard-pressed farmers of Essex County or the hard-pressed farmers of all of southern Ontario? Think what it could do for potential jobs of small business people in Quebec, northern Manitoba and the interior of British Columbia. That is the tax loss which is given. Santa Claus will continue down the path passing out these magnificent gifts and creating, not a fairy tale out of Jack and Jill, but a nightmare of Tory rule which we saw before with the Arrow in the 1950s and which we see now with de Havilland in the 1980s.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, these are tough issues. Building our industrial future is not easy. There are hard choices which we must make. We must start by telling the Government not to sell us out as a country, to stop giving us away to foreign firms and to stop doing it at the expense of the taxpayer of the country who is already so hard pressed that he and she deserve relief and the Christmas gifts rather than the Boeing Corporation of Seattle.

December 3, 1985
Supply



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell)- Estimates-Forecast of government expenditures; the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Federal-Provincial Relations-Participation of Francophones Hors Quebec at Francophonie Summit. (b) Franco-Ontarians-First-class citizenship status-Prime Minister's position; and the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Environmental Affairs-Recommended stiffening of Criminal Code pollution penalties.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Broadbent:
That this House condemns the Government for abandoning the Canadian Aerospace Industry through the sale of de Havilland Aircraft Ltd. to the Boeing Corporation and for its consequent failure to protect the aerospace technology paid for by Canadian taxpayers and developed by de Havilland.
And the amendment thereto of Mr. Kaplan:
That the motion be amended by deleting the period at the end of the sentence and adding the following:
"and further condemns the Government's lack of confidence in the capacity of
Canadians to maintain the country's sovereignty in the aerospace industry".
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, in this chamber we have to get used to the use of hyperbole. A lot of exaggeration goes on on both sides. The Member who just spoke has certainly used his fair share and someone else's too when exaggerating in his speech. He used words like "abandoned" and said that the Government was letting companies like this "go down the drain". I guess the use of hyperbole is okay, but as a former professor he will know that over-use of hyperbole soon destroys the person using it. I will let that take care of itself. No one will believe him if he continues to use that kind of exaggeration.
He should know, as I am sure he does, that this year, next year, and the following year when these aircraft are made and sold around the world they will have a plate on them that says "Made in Canada". He makes it sound as though they are going to be made in the United States now. Does he realize that this will continue to be a Canadian product? In fairness, he should not try to make the people of Canada believe that
just because an American company has bought the company it is now going to be an American plane. As a matter of fact, it will be competing with American planes and will do very well with the kind of world market mandate which it has been given.
I would like to make one other point on the matter of accuracy. The Member went on to say that Boeing was going to be forgiven $65 million. In terms of accuracy and honesty, would it not be good to give the entire equation and tell the people that this is on a five-to-one ratio? For every $5 million that Boeing spends in the market-place across Canada in ancillary industries, whether or not it is for de Havilland, they will be forgiven $1 million. There is a multiplier in there. Would it not be only right and fair, when talking about a $65 million forgiveness, that he talk about the $300 million market which Boeing will have to develop in order to get that forgiveness?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. I think it was Aneurin Beavan who once stated that words occasionally have to be a little bit wild to shake the unthinking. Frankly, as I look at this so-called deal, 1 think that it could only have been put together by people who were unthinking about the sense of potential benefit that could exist for our country by having our own well developed, expanding aircraft industry as opposed to letting it become an appendage of the U.S. aircraft industry. We can slice it different ways and we can use different words but the bottom line is that as a consequence of this move, de Havilland will become an appendage of a very much large U.S. aircraft company, a company which without question will shape the direction it takes in the future.
I believe the implications of this move throughout the world make an interesting point. A big part of our problem in attempting to sell export products to Southeast Asia, Africa, Latin America or other countries which I have visited has been that we do not have a reputation for making contributions to the world of high technology innovation. Frankly, by making de Havilland a division of Boeing Corporation, we will simply prove to those countries throughout the world that the image we already have is the correct image.
Regarding the question of the sale price, the point I made was that that $65 million was deferred. The Hon. Member is quite right in suggesting that the way to get forgiveness is by increasing purchases here in Canada, something which I think is perfectly appropriate. However, to begin by deferring a part of the sale price is taking the opposite tack to that which we as a Government would have taken and that is that we would tell the company to pay its money and make a commitment to buy a certain amount of its production needs here in Canada. It seems to me that in this case, we are saying that the actual price that will be paid by Boeing is only $90 million and we are saying that at the same time as all these other financial goodies are under the same Christmas tree.



December 3, 1985

1 know that the Hon. Member has a reputation of being concerned about the extravagance of Government expenditure.
I hope that he will take the occasion of this debate to look at these incredible potential taxpayer liabilities that attach to the sale of de Havilland of which the $65 million is just one and see to it that this taxpayer liability is reduced in the future.


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to comment on some of the point raised by the Hon. Member for Essex-Wind-sor (Mr. Langdon), who represents my neighbouring riding. First, I would point out that the $200 million that it would cost to keep the company going next year could very well be used by the farmers of Essex County and those across Canada and 1 hope that it will be.
When the Hon. Member began his speech, I thought for a moment that he was going to compliment us. He pointed out that there were some very good American corporate citizens in his riding. The major employers in his area are Chrysler and General Motors, both of which have proven to be very good corporate citizens. Gathering from the Hon. Member's own householder, the Government has probably given his riding more assistance than any other riding in the country in order to develop the high-tech industry in the Windsor area. The Hon. Member should be very thankful to the Conservative Government for doing that for his riding.
1 would like to ask the Hon. Member why he feels that Boeing is not a dynamic company. Does he not think that it is the world leader in aerodynamics and will inject into the Canadian economy more money than the Government could have put in over the next few years?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I must say that 1 am pleased to hear that my householder is such a bestseller that it even penetrates other constituencies. Quite frankly, I am one of those Members who works very hard to get companies to move into my constituency and to make commitments to increase employment in the constituency. Our success record is something of which I am quite proud. It is, I think, a reflection of something that is true of New Democrats and that is that we are not, as we are sometimes painted to be, the foes of the private sector. Our commitment is to make the corporate sector and companies like Chrysler and General Motors make complete commitments to our communities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I find this Chamber to be a very eerie one this afternoon. There have been many debates in the past about Canada's aircraft industry, debates that were filled with rallyism and slashing remarks. It is odd how quiet it is here this afternoon. I think perhaps that is because the Chamber has taken on the atmosphere of a funeral and that the sadness which permeates this place is for the death of a very important part of Canadian tradition and certainly in part for the frustration we feel about our future.


John R. Rodriguez: Solemn and sober.
Supply


Lloyd Axworthy: It is solemn and sober. There is no satisfaction taken by any Hon. Member on this side of the House at the deal that was struck by the Government. It is a deal that we know was propelled by the Draconian motives of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) who wishes to privatize Canadian Government activities. The way it has been done is stupid and ignorant. God, how awful this Government has become that it is so totally indifferent to the interests of the Canadian people and this industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact that Tory Members are laughing about this only underlines just how hardened and calloused they have become toward what Canada is all about. 1 suppose they may be laughing out of embarrassment. They know that they are members of a Government which acquired office to see to the dismantling of Canada's sense of independence and integrity and its ability to provide a future that it will determine on its own. It is too bad that there is such insensitivity to those issues.
The fact is that this particular debate must be used to bring the lessons home so that Canadians will understand in the future what has happened here. The First thing Canadians must undersatnd is how poor a businessman the Government really is.
I attended a conference on Saturday at which a member of the Conservative caucus said that one of the great changes that took place as a result of the election of September 1984 was that the composition of the House of Commons has changed and that Conservatives now have a large representation by small business people. If 1 were John Bulloch or a representative of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business I would be ashamed of that. For all the so-called new business acumen, let us consider what they have done. Let us consider what kind of deal they have made. If one takes a look at the figures one will find that once again they have sold the store for nothing but fantasy and fond wishes. Today I said that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) was fortunate in that Boeing did not offer the Government the Brooklyn Bridge for de Havilland because he would have thought that was a good deal. He would have grabbed it at the first opportunity.
I would like to point out to Hon. Members the type of things which we must look at with respect to this particular negotiation. First, and I think this is a serious charge which 1 must register, the Government has been guilty of serious irregular business practices. These are practices which, under normal business operations, would not be countenanced by any proper auditor of accounting. In order to deliberately show that de Havilland was having heavy losses what the Government did was take the funds being used for development purposes in the new product lines and charged that amount against operating costs. Under normal business practices these charges are normally amortized over 15 or 20 years. Whenever any business
9094

December 3, 1985
Supply
makes a new investment over a period of time it puts it down on the books as a development cost. However, the Government, members of which are smart business people, charged the amount against operating costs. Therefore, when it comes time to sell an aeroplane the new owner will have virtually free and unfettered attachments to the cashflow because there will be no development costs. They have been written off as a result of the accounting practices of the Government.
However, there was a political purpose in this respect. Members of the Government were motivated because they wanted to put the books in front of the Canadian people in order to say: "Look, de Havilland is losing money. We had better show just how bad it is". Instead, they finagled and played the old accounting shell game. They moved forward what would be legitimate development investment expenditures and said that even last year with regard to a sale of $ 192 million de Havilland made only $11.1 million. The company was charged $78 million against its future investments. How can that be justified? What type of so-called smart business practice is that? It may be smart politics, although I do not think so, but it has nothing to do with honesty and integrity in terms of coming to grips with the issue of de Havilland.
One of the really great sights yesterday came about at the press conference held after the announcement of the sale. Someone asked the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) a question something like this: "You are selling this company for $150 million. What are its assets worth?" The Ministers went through their books and they fumbled their papers and looked in the reports. Finally, they had to say: "We don't know". Here were two Ministers of the Crown making a public announcement of great significance and they did not know the value of the assets. In terms of commercial value the land around the Downsview Airport in that part of Toronto is worth more than the amount received for the sale. If one were to talk to municipal officials in that municipality one would find out what could reasonably be expected in terms of the value of the land, to say nothing of the equipment, the capital and development costs and all the other assets which normally go into accounting in terms of the total value of a company.
These Ministers are out selling this company without even caring about what they are selling. They did not care what the value was because the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion wants to privatize. That is his religion. His theology is to privatize. It does not matter for what, what impact it will have or how it will influence the aerospace industry. He just wants to get rid of it. That is his answer.
I would like to set out another example of good business practices, as this Government likes to term it. The Government accepted a full share of the corporate liability and the insurance costs with respect to the aeroplanes. Boeing will have the value of all the assets and all the cashflow but the Canadian taxpayer gets stuck with the insurance costs and future liabilities. Is that not a brilliant stroke of negotiating skill? Does that not show an incredible sense of judgment? We will be stuck for the bill way down the line. Mr. Marshall was not too
sure about the figure but he thought it was around $30 million. Where is that reflected in the sale price? What did Boeing do to receive that kind of deal? I will bet Hon. Members there is not one other deal which Boeing has ever entered into in which it received this type of sweetheart arrangement.
In addition to taking the $90 million in cash and not the full $150 million, the Government said it is also prepared to continue giving grants and loans for the development of the Dash-8, for other research and for modernization of the plant. We are talking about another $300 million or $400 million of additional government money going into this project. As was asked today: "Where are the taxpayers represented?" They will not be represented on the Board of Directors. Will they have any equity? Will they receive anything in return? They will not receive a sou-not a cent.
When we talk about free trade with the United States it is no wonder we say: "God save this country if this is the Government negotiating the deal". It is no wonder we have some concerns when we see the silkful negotiating and bargaining which these wizards of commercial transactions are able to arrive at. The Government sells the company at a write-down price, takes on additional commitments and it receives no equity. As has been said, what we end up with in the result is the loss of any ability to set the direction or management in an area of crucial and vital interest in terms of the Canadian export market.
The Government sold this company just when it was beginning to make money. The company had spent several years investing in a new generation of aeroplanes. The atmosphere of deregulation around the world is creating a new market for commercial aircraft. Just as the taxpayers of Canada were about to realize a return on their investment what did the Tories do? They are so smart that they sold this company off before we could receive the return. That is a great tribute to their great business acumen.
Conservative Members in the House, in particular the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) and others, have said: "Don't worry about it. We have such a wonderful deal with Boeing and they are such a wonderful company that there is nothing to be concerned about". I would like to provide some commentary on that point. First, what is wrong with selling the company to an American multinational? Boeing is certainly a world-class company. It has a wonderful line of aeroplanes. However, to think that it will all of sudden play noblesse oblige with de Havilland is ridiculous.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James spoke about the Boeing factory in Winnipeg. I would like to tell Hon. Members another side to that story. When the building was first developed on grants from the federal Government the commitment then was for a world product mandate similar to what de Havilland was given with respect to fibreglass technology in terms of aeroplanes. However, along the way, in the late 1970s when the airline business began to go into a trough, somehow or other that commitment disappeared. At that time the ability of Boeing in Winnipeg to maintain an independent marketing line for aircraft technology in fibreglass somehow disappeared.
December 3, 1985

It ended up making a few spare parts. Do Hon. Members know what the company is making now? It is making bathtubs. This is Canada's great vault into the new high technology area. This is the new frontier that Boeing of Canada has established in Winnipeg. It is now making bathtubs, which is not a bad product. There is nothing wrong with bathtubs. After all, people have to wash. However, if Canadians think they bought a new frontier in high technology they may want to think again.


John R. Rodriguez: Can they fly?


Lloyd Axworthy: We have never tried.
The fact of the matter is that it was a commitment of the Government.
I would like to point out some other facts with respect to the record. In front of me I have a wonderful article which appeared in The New York Times on September 8. It deals with the type of corporate citizen Boeing is in the United States. The company pleaded guilty to charges laid with respect to illegal foreign payments. It was fined $500,000. It has also been caught in military procurement controversies. It billed the Pentagon for $127,000 in political contributions. In other words, it gave money to politicians and then it billed the Pentagon for the same amount. It also sold pliers to the Pentagon for $700 a pair. That is a way of doing business, I suppose, but if the Government thinks that somehow it is going to get a different kind of treatment, it is wrong. In 1979, Boeing again cut its workforce from 155,000 to 50,000. It basically closed up its operations here. That is the difference, Mr. Speaker. It will be making those corporate decisions in Seattle and Spokane based upon the interests of its entire corporate empire and Canada, as a small division way over in the corner, will simply take what it can get.
The President of Boeing made a comment in today's Wall Street Journal. He was quoted as saying that the de Havilland line of products will represent a very small percentage of the total commercial sales of Boeing, that one 747 is equal to almost 20 of the turbo-prop products of de Havilland. Boeing certainly has a world-wide marketing network, but if you are a salesman for Boeing and you are trying to hustle a 747, a 756 or a 767, and you are spending your time and your expense account, you are going for the big product, not 20 to make up one. It is like Avon calling and you are trying to sell the person at home the full line of products and saying as an aside, "I have a little toothpaste in my bag as well".
The difference is that de Havilland is an independent Canadian company. It should have the opportunity to go out into the world market and sell our aeroplanes with pride and integrity not because we have a great line of jumbo jets but because it is our own product and we know there is a niche in the market for it and we are going out to exploit that particular part of the market. We should not be part of a great massive bazaar where we throw our wares out in front of everyone, saying: "If you buy our 747s, we will give you a
Supply
couple of Dash-8s as a bonus". An independent company would have given us our own independent marketing ability. We would have been able to go into those world markets to develop our own capacity and our own potential in those markets. That is something which 1 believe Canadians wanted. That is something which has been taken away from them by this Government.
With respect to research and development, the Government tells us it is going to have this vast capital resource of Boeing to help exploit future development. I would suggest that Hon. Members of the Conservative Party read the very long article in the business pages of The New York Times of September 8. It talks about the big responsibility and obligation of the new president of Boeing. He will have to make tough choices. He has military planes and computer hardware. He has big commercial aircraft. He does not have enough capital to finance all of these things. He has to make choices between them. Does the Government think that de Havilland is going to get preference when it is competing with 747s, new SDI star wars projects and new computer development around the world? It will get it if we give Boeing sweetheart arrangements. If DRIE starts feeding it gobs of new research grants and more loans, Boeing will say, "Oh, yes, we will take it". Of course, it will. But the point is that in terms of research and development, the Dash-8 is now a fully mature aeroplane. It is out in the market. At some point down the line we have to ask ourselves what the future is of de Havilland. What new generation of air products will begin to be developed by that company? Where is the money going to come from for that? Are we going to find, as has happened with virtually every other company which has been absorbed by this large multinational, that the engineering, the administration, the R and D and the corporate decision making, will be consolidated at the American headquarters and the de Havilland division will be just one in a long line of supplicants for a very scarce amount of resources? We will become a sub-assembly plant in Canada. That is the future.
We are losing our sense of independence to become a sub-assembly plant. That, perhaps, says it all about the economic philosophy os this Government. It is happy that Canada becomes a sub-assembly plant for the big American corporate empires. It has no sense of pride that we can do things on our own. It has no sense of motive, will or purpose in trying to achieve something which Canadians can do well, making sure they have the resources to do so.


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and then ask a very simple question of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). His speech is not much different from the rhetoric I used to hear when the Hon. Member was a Member of the provincial legislature. I do not know how anyone can take the Hon. Member seriously when he makes the statement that Bristol Winnipeg manufactures bathtubs. I would like to read to you, Mr. Speaker, what they do manufacture in Winnipeg. It is unfortunate that the Hon. Member does not have the time to come home and see for himself some of the plants in Winnipeg. He would then

December 3, 1985
Supply
recogniz the leads we have in the aerospace industry. The Winnipeg plant, Aerodat, manufatures magnetometer booms. Avco Systems Division has the graphite/epoxy aerospace structural assemblies. Boeing makes all the composite components and assemblies for all Boeing commercial aircraft including the latest 756 and 767 aircraft. Boeing Vertol makes the 737-200/300 flap track fairing panels and CH47 inlet screens. Canadair manufactures a number of assemblies in the specialized fibreglass field. The Communications Research Centre does work on large graphite/epoxy structures for dynamic testing of satellite bodies and de Havilland manufactures component parts. Bathtubs have not been manufacture in that plant since February 1983 so I would like to know what the Hon. Member is using for research and who he is trying to kid about Boeing in Winnipeg. It is one of the leaders in the aerospace industry in specialized fibreglass components.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James has just proven my point. The fact is that that company, which was given a world product mandate in those areas, has become a manufacturer of components for other aircraft industries. It was the mandate that was given back in the 1970s for which it received federal grants from my Government. These grants were negotiated by Liberals to help employment in the Hon. Member's riding, which we continue to do because we are still using some of those DRIE grants even though his Government has cancelled the program. This company has now been relegated to the back corner to become a sub-assembly plant of components. It is not providing the kind of high technology leadership which would open a sales market around the world. It is simply doing the component manufacturing. I used the bathtub example because that is what they did produce for a long period of time-


Clement George Minaker: Two years ago.


Lloyd Axworthy: -and it is still selling them. One can walk down the street and still purchase them. Perhaps because it did not work out so well, it was decided to discontinue the line. I am not saying that Boeing is not a good employer. It provides decent employment. However, it is a case of a lost opportunity and that is what we are talking about with de Havilland. It is a lost opportunity to become world leaders in this technology, to provide for an independent set of technologies, not simply to take the kind of orders which are coming out of the major headquarters. It supplies the blueprints and you get to work. I think the discouraging part of all this is that these people and this Government do not understand that difference.


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to inform the Hon. Member, who is obviously not interested in seeing what is being manufactured in Winnipeg, that Boeing is not selling the bathtub. The design was bought by a Canadian company and the new Canadian company is involved in the manufacturing and sale of this bathtub.


John R. Rodriguez: I listened carefully to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). He mentioned that Boeing went to the trough, to use his words, and received this
money and it was going to make fiberglass components for aircraft. Then it did not do that. It ended up making bathtubs. Which Government gave Boeing the money to do what it was supposed to do? If it did not do what it was supposed to do, what did the Government do to protect the integrity of the investment of the taxpayers in Boeing?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what point the Hon. Member is trying to make. Industrial grants were given for the expansion of a plant. There was a building and certain equipment went into that building, all based on commitments written into a contract. They carried on for a period of time. Then there was a depression in the airline market and Boeing simply made a decision at its corporate headquarters to no longer make those products. That is the kind of problem we find in doing this. If the Hon. Member is saying that he or his Party does not believe in the federal Government assisting companies in Canada to modernize or expand, then he is establishing a new policy. I have heard the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) make wonderful speeches in this House about the necessity of Government providing investment funds to modernize and develop new technology. That is why I said that the responsibility here is to make sure that we have an equity position. We should be revising the way in which we provide economic development grants and support and take an equity position in the company concerned. The Liberal Government began to do that. I remind the Hon. Member that when the multinationals were going to close down de Havilland and Canadair, we stepped in and took the company to a point where we could maintain it. We would try to find someone for a joint venture so there would be a continuation of Canadian equity and whatever new company came about.
If the Hon. Member is interested in making cheap political points, that is all right. However, we are debating something much larger and much more significant than that, and it is too bad he does not see that.


Mr. Lopez:: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker .. . the hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) made numerous references to Santa Claus, and since it will soon be Christmas, there is something I want to ask Santa Claus. If he has an extra supply of objectivity or common sense, I wish he would give some to the Opposition Members. It would certainly help the proceedings here in the House.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the Hon. Member to a report commissioned in 1978 which sets out a variety of options concerning what should be done. I wish the Government had read the report because through a series of joint ventures the Canadian aerospace industry might have been able to enjoy world product mandates and manufacturing while Canadians still retained equity and interest in those companies. I would also point out that so far as de Havilland is
December 3, 1985

concerned, there was a consortium of Canadian companies which were prepared to buy the company. They have said publicly that had Canadian companies been given the same deal that was offered to Boeing, Mac's Milk could have bought de Havilland. It was a sweetheart arrangement. This Canadian group has the experience and it was prepared to buy the company and this Government did not even show them an open door.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to speak to the House on the motion concerning the sale of de Havilland to the private sector. I also consider it a great honour to have been reappointed as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, who played a decisive role in preparing the historic agreement that led to this privatization.
When this Government came to power a little over a year ago, we announced our intention of turning a number of state-owned enterprises over to the private sector. During the months following this announcement, management and the board of directors of the Canada Development Investment Corporation negotiated with great dedication, on our behalf, and were successful in concluding an agreement that will be very beneficial to Canada. And that is how Boeing has now become the owner of de Havilland.
It is good news for de Havilland, its employees and the entire Canadian aerospace industry.
Under its new management, the company is expected to grow until it becomes a major partner of international caliber within this extremely competitive industry. Canada has gradually carved a niche for itself on world markets. If we add Boeing's marketing and financial resources to de Havilland's world reputation for the manufacture of short range aircraft, I think we have a winning combination.
As was pointed out by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), in privatizing de Havilland, our main objective was to revitalize Canada's role in the international aerospace industry, since a company must be strong and aggressive to win in an extremely competitive market, to expand its scope and create new jobs and attract new investment, de Havilland will now have access to Boeing's sophisticated marketing network as well as its technical expertise and financial resources. The result will be a stronger and more viable company that will safeguard existing jobs while creating the potential for new jobs across Canada. A company that provides employment is a healthy company.
We expect the agreement with Boeing to increase employment in Canada generally, as well as at the de Havilland plant in Downsview. The sale proposal provided for a purchase price
Supply
of $155 million, including $65 million in the form of a repayable note. Under the terms of our agreement, for each $5 million worth of new jobs created by Boeing, $1 million will be cut off the amount owing. This could mean new projects estimated at $325 million across Canada, and the potential for thousands of jobs across the country.
Under the new management de Havilland will be responsible for designing and making all short-range Boeing aircraft for world-wide markets, thus maintaining Canadian leadership in that technological sector of aviation. Boeing fully expects to expand its sphere of activities at Downsview's de Havilland plant so as to make better use of existing manpower and equipment. We are extremely pleased with the way the negotiations were carried out with Boeing, and with the signing of the letter of intent which was finalized by the sale announcement yesterday.
There is no doubt that Boeing is an acknowledged leader in the aerospace industry, with capital investments of $9 billion and sales of approximately $13 billion last year. Boeing has also achieved an outstanding reputation in technological development and employer-employee relations. I should think that the board and management of CDIC deserve our congratulations for their efforts which led to yesterday's announcement. A number of bids were examined by the corporation, and an exhaustive market study was commissioned. CDIC management recommended acceptance of Boeing's bid and their recommendation was endorsed by several independent investment firms. They all agree that the decision is an excellent deal for Canada and Canadian taxpayers. This sale is another fulfilled commitment of our Government to take part in the economic renewal by privatizing those Crown corporations which no longer serve the best public interests. Better still, it is a unique occasion to maintain the strength and dynamism of our aerospace industry.
Our decision to sell de Havilland to private interests will have other advantages which Members of the Opposition have deliberately chosen to ignore, intent as they are to take a negative approach whenever the Government makes an announcement. For example, some of the tax provisions included in the agreement will be of special interest to Canada's regional air carriers. Our regional air carriers-so important in a country as vast as ours, and particularly in the less densely populated regions-will be able to purchase top-of-the-line equipment at low interest rates.
In fact, the growth and development of our regional air carriers are some of the main features of the policy of this Government which ensures that all Canadians receive quality services no matter where they have elected to live in this country.
Other corporations involved in the Canadian aerospace industry will also benefit from the privatization of de Havil-

December 3, 1985
Supply
land. According to the terms of the sale, Boeing has agreed to honour all previous contracts with suppliers who will also benefit from the company's increased sale volume. That is a golden opportunity for developing new contracts and co-operating with one of the greatest aerospace corporations in the world.
Contrary to our predecessors who had presided over the take-over of de Havilland, we behaved wisely and in a business like manner. The take-over occurred under a Liberal administration, without any sort of plan to ensure the growth of the firm and the expansion of its market. On the contrary, we had very precise goals in mind when we initiated the privatization of de Havilland. The privatization, as announced yesterday, will result in a renewed market, more jobs and the establishment of a strong and dynamic aerospace industry in Canada. Benefits and spin-offs are gained immediately and will accrue for many years to come.
As a Crown corporation, de Havilland seemed to alternate between good and bad years, like on a roller coaster. The number of jobs, from a record high of 5,000 in 1981, came down to nearly half of that two years later. Thanks to a new diversified investment basis which the new administration is planning now, Boeing should create a more stable environment. We believe that de Havilland had reached a critical stage in its development, a stage which required a solid direction and diversified investments from the private sector. Boeing is offering this corporation a chance to prosper and grow.
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am quite surprised by the negative reactions and criticism which a number of Hon. Members opposite have voiced following the announcement of this agreement with Boeing. Yet, ever since the acquisition of de Havilland in 1974, successive Governments had never denied their intention to sell this corporation as soon as they received a reasonable offer. Now, we have received such an offer which we have carefully studied and compared with others, and we have come to an agreement with Boeing in the best interest of both the Canadian Government and taxpayers. We see no benefit or logic in hanging on to a corporation which was a burden on the Public Treasury when we realize the advantages the Boeing corporation will be offering the de Havilland corporation by providing it with a solid financial base.
A number of Hon. Members have expressed some concern. They felt that, by privatizing the de Havilland corporation, we had failed to protect the development of the Canadian aerospace technology. Their concerns are without any foundation. The growth and profitability of the Canadian aerospace industry have been among the Government's primary concerns, and guaranties to that effect are part of the agreement.
Boeing has committed itself to maintain and enhance research and development at de Havilland's and has effectively established a long term investment plan. This is an indication
of the seriousness of the corporation regarding the future. We know that Boeing is quite impressed by de Havilland engineering and will use this asset to develop the business.
As a Crown corporation, de Havilland did have some engineering successes. However, in recent times, there have been mostly failures. In view of the decision of Boeing to grant de Havilland a world product mandate for the design, development and production of the turbo-propelled shuttle, the growth potential of the company is obvious. The purpose of privatization was to find the best possible purchaser to build on the solid foundations established by de Havilland throughout the years and to guarantee job security and the creation of new jobs, not only in Toronto, but throughout Canada.
In our opinion and that of the independent financial advisers, Boeing was the company which best met our requirements.
I profoundly disagree with those who can see no benefit in this transaction simply because the headquarters of the purchasing company are located in the United States. The tendency in the aeronautical industry favours joint international endeavours which make use of the knowledge and experience of several countries.
Moreover, there is nothing new in the association of Boeing and Canada. The company already has plants in Arnprior and Winnipeg and will no doubt continue to be a good Canadian corporate citizen. Moreover, Boeing will appoint Canadians to its board of directors and consider Canadian equity participation. In other words, the Corporation understands the need to become involved in Canadian activities and has given enough evidence that it is willing to meet these requirements, including participation in other projects, jointly with Canadian suppliers.
Finally, I would like to say something about another sector of the aerospace industry which has developed in Canada in the last few years. From discussions with the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), I understand that negotiations are now underway to sell Canadair to the private sector. In the meantime, this Corporation continues to increase its sales and improve its financial situation, showing that it can meet the challenge of international competition.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that selling de Havilland benefits all Canadians and that if we could succeed in getting as good a deal and in finding purchasers as competent for Canadair, it could also be of benefit to Canadians.
Considering both this information and the agreement which ensures the development of de Havilland, I am convinced that the Canadian aerospace industry has a great future. We shall never be content to manage a branch plant industry in Canada, but we shall continue to produce the most sophisticated of airplanes, maintaining the tradition of excellence which we have always had in Canada and of which we are rightly proud.
December 3, 1985


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a comment and then a question for the Hon. Member. I listened with some interest to what the Parliamentary Secretary said. If those listening did not understand the nature of the deal, much of what was said would likely be acceptable.
Let me point out that there is no co-ownership offer before us at the moment. If I recall correctly, the Hon. Member said that co-ownership between countries is now the normal practice in the aerospace industry. There is no co-ownership in this operation. Therefore, such a statement leaves an impression with the public that this situation exists. It does not.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to be factual at the very least. I do not mind if she attempts to put her argument forward in the best possible light. I understand that and do not expect anything less or more. However, when Parliamentary Secretaries to Ministers read statements into the record, 1 expect those statements to be factual and accurate. That statement was not.
I assume she has some in-depth knowledge of the nature of the deal. Can she tell us exactly how much the real property, the land and buildings, now owned by de Havilland was appraised at in advance of entering into this arrangement? Could she tell me the dollar value of the land and the buildings owned by de Havilland which will become the property of Boeing?


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to deal with the queer comment made by my Hon. colleague in the premise of his question.
It is quite unfair in my view, to suggest that when we are addressing the House here, we manage to say just about anything. I never charged my Hon. colleague with such intentions, and I regret that questions should be premised with such remarks.
In the information kit that was released at the press conference, there was enough material to give an outline of the memorandum of agreement to be signed. There is a contract to be signed. This must be finalized. I think that, as has been stated, when everything is completed, it will be tabled in this House and you will have an opportunity to examine it.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I am not interested in knowing what will be tabled in the House. 1 want to know from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister who is primarily responsible for the deal how much was the appraised value of the land and buildings now owned by de Havilland which will be turned over to Boeing. How much was it?
Supply


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, during the question period, I think reference was even made to the agreements and to the memorandum to be signed. It was said that those documents would be tabled the moment they are ready. I think my Hon. colleague should wait and see what will be tabled in this House.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, this morning, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) offered to provide me with some information concerning Advance Planning, part of the Camp company in Toronto. Apparently it was retained by Boeing to do consulting work. Since the Parliamentary Secretary was not in the House this morning, I was interested in knowing whether she was aware that Advance Planning actually carried out the negotiations on behalf of Boeing. Apparently that company represents Boeing in Canada.
How much of the negotiations was carried out by Advance Planning? Could the Parliamentary Secretary determine exactly what the Boeing Corporation paid that company to carry out the negotiations? Was the company on a commission basis?
It would seem to any normal observer of the situation that Boeing has got a tremendous deal, in that a company which cost the country some $760 million is being sold to it for $95 million. Someone negotiated a tremendous deal for the Boeing Corporation. Was it Advance Planning? Was that company paid a commission or a percentage for every million dollars by which it was able to knock down the price? I would like to know just what was the percentage. How much was Advance Planning paid to carry out this negotiation on behalf of Boeing? Obviously it is a well-connected company.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I think this question was put today to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), and he stated that he would table the answer.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have just a short supplementary question. Earlier the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that when the deal was complete, they would be tabling the documents in the House. Would she undertake on behalf of the Minister to table the documentation with regard to Advance Planning, as to what part it played, what fees it was paid by Boeing and so on?
In the spirit of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he said that he wanted to make the House pre-eminent, would the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mrs. Tardif) undertake to see that the matter is brought before the House for a vote? In that event every Member could vote on the issue. Obviously this is a major corporation. We passed legislation respecting Crown corporations on June 28, 1984, in which it was indicated that such situations involving major Crown corporations of the size and calibre of de Havilland should be brought before

December 3, 1985
Supply
the House for a vote. Would the Parliamentary Secretary make a commitment on behalf of the Government to do that?
[ Translation]


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my Hon. colleague that 1 have no recollection that, under the previous administration, such requests were ever answered. My intention earlier ... what I said is that, when the documents are ready, the whole thing would be tabled in its form and contents, in compliance with the usual standards, and I think the same answer applies to this other request.


Mr. Johnson:: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to make a couple of comments. 1 did not take part in the debate mainly because I did not consider myself to be knowledgeable enough about the aircraft manufacturing business. However, after listening to some Hon. Members on the opposition side of the House, 1 am beginning to wonder what they know about it or the economics of it.
Sometimes we are all leery about believing what we see in newspaper articles, but I have been prompted to make a comment. I have seen that in the first nine months of this year, the sales of de Havilland were $204 million, compared with $160 million last year. At the same time, the net loss was $55.1 million, compared with $19 million last year. Do those figures make them wonder why we could not get any more for it than we are getting?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period provided for questions and comments has now terminated.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the last Hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Government said that he was not an expert on the airline industry and that he did not think Opposition Members were. That is probably true. 1 do not believe that most Hon. Members of the House are experts on any particular industry which we may be investigating at a given time. However, we have a wider responsibility, that is, to look at the actions of Government, especially when its actions have the effect of costing taxpayers millions and millions of dollars.
Let us look at the way in which the deal was entered into, the tax liabilities we inherited as a result of the agreement, future tax losses as a result of it, and the fact that the Government has committed itself to a share of all development costs. The people of Canada are being committed to more costs in respect of export financing. We are curious in terms of the real assets which will be sold-the value of the land, the buildings and other assets such as machinery. We do not know that information. The fact that the Parliamentary Secretary could not answer those questions is a concern to all parliamentarians.
Earlier today, a number of members of our caucus asked the Government to ensure that Parliament had access to that information. They asked for a parliamentary committee to hold hearings on the matter prior to any final vote or final
agreement. We have not received assurances from the Government in that regard, and 1 think it is very important for them to be given.
It is not just that the Auditor General said that we as parliamentarians must do a better job looking after the public purse. It is not just that the Auditor General said that one area in which Parliament was weakest, in terms of doing that job, was that of tax expenditures. Obviously the memorandum of agreement with Boeing involves many future tax commitments to that particular company. It is not only because of those two concerns that I am participating in the debate. It is because I have a concern about the future of our entire aircraft industry.
I mentioned earlier today that I was a teenager when the previous Conservative majority Government decided to destroy the Avro Arrow program. That decision was made over 20 years ago but I believe that most Canadians who grew up in that generation still believe that that was a colossal mistake. The massive Conservative majority in the House of Commons made that decision. They were so paranoid that not only did they destroy the plans for the Avro Arrow, but they took the one prototype and cut it up into one-inch pieces. They absolutely destroyed the plans for that plane and the plane itself.
As a result of that decision we not only lost the lead that we had at that time in that area, but we lost the research and development that would have followed and the technological expertise that was in the country at the time as well as the resulting jobs. We are now importing the very types of planes which the Avro Arrow was providing us with the technology to develop in Canada.
1 am afraid that what is being done in this particular case is a shadow of what the previous Conservative majority Government did over 20 years ago. The Conservatives say that they are getting rid of de Havilland because it is costing us money. Yet, we see from the very memorandum of agreement which has been signed and the few details that they have given out that we are committing ourselves to hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditure through tax write-offs or actual cash gifts to Boeing in the future. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we are not selling de Havilland to Boeing just to reduce the cost to the taxpayer because the Conservative Government is committing the taxpayers of Canada to spending hundreds of millions of dollars in the future to help Boeing. I think that certainly destroys any argument the Government makes in terms of this being a financial saving to the taxpayer.
The people who work at de Havilland were not consulted before this decision was made and neither was the Parliament of Canada. We do not have before us at this time a copy of the memorandum of agreement. We have no commitment from the Government that Parliament will hold hearings on the final agreement. That is important, not only because that final agreement could cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, and not only because we have no knowledge of what is involved in terms of tax expenditures, both of which are things the Auditor General said Parliament should know about, but, probably
December 3, 1985

even more important, Parliament must have hearings and access to the complete agreement prior to it being signed because there exists the very dangerous possibility that we will again destroy the whole aircraft construction industry in the country.
We do not need another Avro Arrow. Just because the Conservative Government has the same type of massive majority in the House of Commons does not mean that it has to make the same mistake. Instead we should have a commitment from the Government that it will not blindly follow an ideological path thinking that we must get rid of Crown corporations, that we should not put any restrictions on private corporations, and that we should not be concerned that Boeing could strip the operation of de Havilland and take the technology that we paid for out of the City of Toronto to San Francisco, Seattle, or any other operation they have in the States.
That is what we are talking about here. The Government is giving Boeing the company and saying that it will give them some money and tax benefits in the future and pay for any export financing costs and development costs for the Dash-8 even though it will now be in private hands. Yet, the Government is not putting any restrictions on. It is not asking for job guarantees or any guarantees that the technology will stay in Canada. The Government is even allowing the physical assets, aside from the land, to be taken right out of the country. That has been done before, Mr. Speaker.
This is not a small deal. It is a massive deal which will cost the taxpayers of Canada hundreds of millions of dollars, not only because we will still be giving money to Boeing, but because we will be losing money that we should be collecting in taxation. We will be paying for the future development of the Dash-8. Yet we have made no requirements of Boeing. Why is that, Mr. Speaker?
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we realize that when the Government signed this memorandum of agreement it showed us a very bad example of what it might do in the free trade negotiations. We are speaking about a Canadian Crown corporation. There is no question that it has problems and that it is costing the Canadian taxpayers. However, it also has a product which is being made and developed in Canada and guaranteed sales of over 140 planes in the next little while. What is the Government doing? Is it saying that we should have production guarantees in the country? Is it saying that those jobs should be secure for Canadians? Is it saying that there should be some concern for what happens to the people who work in that plant? No, it is not, Mr. Speaker. It is negotiating with its eyes closed. It is giving away the shop and is not requiring any guarantees on behalf of the people who will be buying a Canadian industry.
1, as well as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) and others in the House, have negotiated before. I must say that you cannot control what the other side puts on the table. However, when you go into negotiations, whether for de Havilland or the free trade pact which the Government is so keen on having with the Americans, we have a right to know
Supply
what our side is negotiating with. After having seen what I have of this memorandum of agreement I have absolutely no faith that the Conservative Government will negotiate a good deal on behalf of Canada. It has not shown that it will keep even the shirt on our back when it goes into negotiations. It has not shown that it is concerned about Canadian content, with keeping jobs in Canada, with keeping Canadian technology in Canada, or that it even knows the financial details of what it gave away.
In response to a question from the House Leader of the New Democratic Party the Parliamentary Secretary could not say what the value of the assets were. How much is that land in downtown Toronto worth? How much is that building worth? How much is the machinery worth? If we are negotiating an agreement with someone else, we should know what the heck is the value of our own position. The Government does not know the value of its own position and it is certainly not capable of knowing it when it comes to negotiating a much more massive deal with the Americans.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5.50 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the Business of Supply in accordance with Section 9 of Standing Order 63. The question is on the amendment put by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Therefore, the next question is on the main motion.
1 take it that it is the pleasure of the House to use the same vote with the addition of the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett), the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates) and the Hon. Member for Cape Breton High-lands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil)?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 46 deemed to have been moved.

Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, on November 19, 1985, I asked a question of the President of the Treasury Board concerning the recent Supplementary Estimates. While it was encouraging that those Estimates showed a modest increase by historical standards, 1 still find it troublesome in relation to the big job this Government has to do to get the deficit under control and to reduce the awesome size of our national debt. Many of my constituents continue to be alarmed at the size of that debt.
George Yates of Denver Crescent, and Ken Stephen of Meadowglade Crescent have mentioned this issue many times. Just today I received a letter from T. Richard Davies of Himount Drive in Willowdale to which he attached an article by J. Christopher Barron which outlines in a hard-hitting fashion the situation this Government has to deal with.
I believe we are on a collision course. Our national debt is now over $200 billion and the interest cost alone is roughly $20 billion to $22 billion a year. How long can we continue to spend $105 billion a year while collecting only approximately $71 billion? Households cannot do this. Corporations cannot do this. If you do not have the money, then bankruptcy will be the end result. I submit that Governments cannot continue in this fashion either.
We can be very proud of our social programs. Our care for our elderly is second to none in the world. Senior citizens now account for approximately 10 per cent of our population, but shortly after the turn of the century that will increase to 25 per cent. If we want to continue to give to that group the care it deserves we will have to get our spending under control. In a few decades the Canada Pension Plan will be in trouble if we do not have the money to support it. Other areas will suffer as well.
However, the recent meeting of the First Ministers in Halifax once again showed the difficult problem of coming to grips with the cost of running this country. This Government was very generous in granting a 5 per cent increase in transfer payments, an amount which is higher than inflation, yet we saw the Premiers demanding 7 per cent, almost double the rate of inflation.
Adjournment Debate
Over the last 10 years the deficit has risen from a mere $2 billion to the $34 billion to $35 billion range today. Ten years ago our national debt was $24 billion. Today it is a staggering $200 billion to $225 billion. This erodes the confidence of investors. It reduces incentives for risk-taking.
Three out of four ridings elected a Conservative Member in the last general election. They wanted a change in the direction of this country. At the top of the list of things they wanted this Government to do was to get spending under control. There are a lot of good things happening now. The Nielsen task force is tackling hundreds of programs with a view to reducing their cost. Today the sale of de Havilland has been extensively debated. This company has been draining the treasury of $50 million a year and this sale will put an end to that. There are many more measures under way. 1 would just like to underscore that we know the task we have ahead of us and we will be working with due diligence to gain the respect of Canadians and get this ever-increasing deficit off of our back. In that way we can get on with the social programs which this country will need in the future.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, whenever the Government is developing a budgetary strategy, it expects planned reductions as much as possible. For example, the 1985-86 estimates reflected its firm determination to reduce our expenditures in accordance with our November 1984 financial statement.
The implementation of those economic measures has effectively allowed us to reduce current supplementary estimates. [English]
However, we must realize that Supplementary Estimates are a vehicle for seeking funds for unforeseen requirements and for new initiatives which are not finalized at the time Main Estimates are tabled. A few of the recommendations of the ministerial task force on program review are reflected in the level of Estimates for 1985-86. Still further reductions will be reflected in the 1986-87 Main Estimates.
In response to the question of when we will see absolute declines in the Estimates, we would draw our colleagues' attention to the fact that some 25 per cent of the Government's spending is on public debt charges in order to finance the current high debt levels created by the previous Government. I would also point out that almost 40 per cent of the total budget consists of transfer payments to persons directly, and other levels of Government. These payments are, for the most part, made in accordance with legislation which has indexing and other growth components built in.
With these facts in mind it is difficult to conceive of immediate over-all year-to-year decreases in spending Estimates. The aim of the Government is to reduce the budgetary deficit by reducing the growth of expenditures relative to revenues. The Minister of Finance's latest projections, as presented earlier this month in his progress report on securing

December 3, ! 985
Adjournment Debate
economic renewal, show that budgetary revenues and program expenditures will continue to rise but will be roughly in balance by 1990-91.

Our Government's budget is a priority if we are to reduce the deficit and, consequently, we definitely intend to operate within its tax limits for the current year.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS (A) PARTICIPATION OF FRANCOPHONES HORS QUEBEC AT FRANCOPHONIE SUMMIT. (B) FRANCO-ONTARIANS- FIRST-CLASS CITIZENSHIP STATUS-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on November 18 of this year, I raised in the House a question concerning the Francophonie Summit, which appears to be taking shape and will be held at Versailles, France, in February 1986. A number of francophone countries will be meeting to discuss the future of the francophone group, something like what is done in the Commonwealth context.
I will not mention all the problems and pitfalls this meeting seems to represent for certain people, and I asked the Prime Minister-since an agreement had been concluded with Quebec and New Brunswick had also been given the assurance it would be participating on an official basis in the discussions-if he could ensure that the francophone diaspora, and I am referring to francophones outside Quebec, in the other provinces, and especially in Ontario where there are 500,000 ... I asked him whether they too could directly participate in the discussions at this meeting.
The Prime Minister said with a great deal of empathy that he fully understood my question, and that he first wanted to explain that New Brunswick had been invited because, and I quote the Prime Minister as reported at page 8543 in Hansard'.
-because the Province of New Brunswick is officially bilingual and it is a major reason for being asked to participate on an official basis.
I realize that, and the Prime Minister went on to say:
I would think that the decision was first made because New Brunswick is officially bilingual, which unfortunately is still not the case in Ontario.
And then he said:
Still I intend to look favourably upon the proposition of my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, the question this evening is whether the Prime Minister has had time to think about my proposal and whether he has a response, because I am a little concerned about the way the media, especially, reported the exchange we had in the House. 1 could give a few examples, Mr. Speaker: "Official bilingualism first says Mulroney", in referring to Ontario participation at the Francophonie Summit. "Franco-Ontarians will not be represented at the Sommet de la francophonie", a headline in Le Devoir. "Mulroney excludes Ontario from francophone summit'', in Le Droit.

" 'Lack of official bilingualism in Ontario unfortunate'. PM" and " 'Unilingual Ontario is abnormal'. PM".

Mr. Speaker, it was my intention at the time to take a position approach and make Canadians understand there are francophones living in other provinces who like to think the federal Government speaks on their behalf. We just wanted to make sure that the Government representing us at the summit proceedings will do so in the appropriate manner and provide for the kind of presence and representation with which we could feel comfortable.
1 simply want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether in his reply he could, for instance, give me the assurance that the president of the Association canadienne fran^aise de I'Ontario, the ACFO, who wrote to the Prime Minister on November 12 asking him, and he makes it quite clear in his letter, and I quote:
-75 per cent of Canada's francophones live in Ontario-
If we exclude Quebec and New Brunswick, of course-
-where they form an active and thriving community. It would therefore be desirable to have a Franco-Ontarian invited to join the delegation that will be representing French Canada at this international summit.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is a prefectly honest and legitimate request on the part of a group of people who are Canadians first, but who happen to speak French.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he could assure us this evening that Franco-Ontarians will not be excluded from the Francophonie Summit because their province is not officially bilingual.
This is the conclusion one can draw from newspaper headlines: because the province is not bilingual, Franco-Ontarians will be excluded from the Francophonie Summit. In my judgment, that is altogether unacceptable and saddening as a conclusion.
I know, Mr. Speaker-and I would like to explain this in the few remaining minutes-that we in Canada have a very special kind of bilingualism. New Brunswick and Canada are officially bilingual, they have two official languages, French and English.
Quebec is also bilingual, but in its own way, according to Section 133 of the Constitution which stipulates: In Quebec, you must communicate with your Canadian residents in French or in English when dealing with documents of the Legislature or documents before the courts. Therefore it is institutional bilingualism, and the same institutional bilingualism exists in Manitoba. Now then, if Quebec and New Brunswick were invited because they are "bilingual", why was Manitoba not invited since it too, according to Section 23, is
December 3, 1985

bilingual? You know why? I am a bit surprised at some of the standards of eligibility for this conference which I consider to be very important. I consider it essential to us because I think it is about time someone began to talk about our existence. Whether we like it or not, we are the cement of this country. As long as there are Francophones and Anglophones in Canada, this country of ours will continue to exist. But the moment the mortar crumbles, the bricks begin to fall, and the moment there are no longer any Francophones in British Columbia, in Manitoba, in Ontario or elsewhere, Canada will not stay together as 1 want it to. It will not stay officially bilingual, respectful of both official languages as it must be.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to be assured this evening that French-speaking Ontario will be guaranteed active participation in the February 1976 Versailles meeting, through its spokesmen, ACFO or others. I look forward to the response.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome this opportunity to answer the Ffon. Member's question. I am afraid he is going to be somewhat disappointed, if he wanted a specific answer to the question: Will the ACFO be a direct participant in the summit? As my hon. friend said earlier, the ACFO sent a letter around the middle of November. You yourself very wisely remarked it was a complex issue. The Prime Minister has promised to think about it and in his reply he will certainly emphasize aspects that are encouraging for all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should not forget that the Prime Minister will be representing all Canadians at this international summit, whether they are francophones or anglophones.
My second point, Mr. Speaker, is that there are certain countries . .. Let us say that Quebec and New Brunswick were members of the Agence de cooperation culturelle et technique. Their two Governments were participants. And there are necessarily two aspects to the Canadian Government's participation, as my hon. friend has implied.
However, 1 think the Hon. Member should take another look at the answer the Prime Minister gave on November 18 and read it very carefully:
but I would indeed be quite pleased were the delegation to include Franco-Ontarians.
Therefore, on the basis of that statement by the Prime Minister, who represents all Canadians, and since some of the provincial Governments are already active in international agencies, I think the Prime Minister will know how to show leadership, and will certainly, first, represent all Francophone and Anglophone Canadians and, second, give every opportunity to all of those who are anxious to fulfil their aspirations in this country.
Adjournment Debate


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-RECOMMENDED STIFFENING OF CRIMINAL CODE POLLUTION PENALTIES
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, the Law Reform Commission of Canada recently recommended that our Criminal Code be amended to include crimes against the environment. That was a rather revolutionary recommendation on the part of that Commission because traditionally lawyers and judges, when dealing with the Criminal Code, have been very, very conservative in their suggestions and have usually taken the attitude that the Criminal Code is sacrosanct and should not be amended to include new types of crimes.
The Criminal Code was originally drafted over 100 years ago. The crimes included at that time were crimes of those days. Time has passed and things have changed, but very few new offences have ever been included in the Criminal Code. Therefore, it is rather revolutionary that the Law Reform Commission is actually recommending that new offences against the environment be included.
While it is a revolutionary idea, it is understandable that the Law Reform Commission should be recommending something like this in light of what has been happening to society in the last few years. As you know, there are now over 1,200 individual chemical substances that have been identified and are considered to be dangerous. When they escape into the air, the water or, for that matter, our food, they can cause more than a small amount of trouble. We can see the effect on the physical environment from acid rain. In addition to that, we can see impact on our own physical property when the dangerous substances result in fires and explosions. In the last week or so we have heard reports that would indicate that some of these dangerous substances may be in our processed foods. All of these things will obviously cause people great concern; cause them to want to see a real form of control over the pollutants and the people who are polluting our environment.
We have had many examples of these sorts of things in recent years, as you are well aware. It is just over one year ago that there was a great chemical escape from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, which killed upwards of 2000 people. In addition, we have recently had problems with a PCB spill in Kenora, Ontario. We have had continuing problems along the Niagara River in New York State. The chemical dumps at Love Canal, Hyde Park, S area and 102nd Street in Niagara Falls, New York, are all currently seeping toxic material down the banks of the Niagara River into the River and Lake Ontario potentially causing great problems for the four million Canadians who live around Lake Ontario. We have had problems with nuclear waste at Port Hope, Ontario, as well as many, many other problems of this sort.
The Law Reform Commission has, therefore, suggested that in order to focus on this and to put some teeth in the laws we should actually include offences against the environment in our Criminal Code. They do not suggest that we should do away with all the other offences in the provincial statutes or

December 3, 1985
Adjournment Debate
other federal statutes, but do suggest that we should provide something specific in the Criminal Code to take into account serious acts of commission and omission, to take into account harmful acts, and to take into account acts which are performed with intent, wrecklessly, and with gross negligence. Those are the types of crimes against the environment that it is suggested should be included in the Criminal Code.
The commission indicates that in addition to the fines which we have now there should be penalties, orders for restitution, and jail terms for executives and directors of the polluting companies. This is not revolutionary because many other countries include this sort of thing in their laws. Ten states in the United States include this sort of thing in their laws, and West Germany and Japan both have provisions for crimes against the environment in their Criminal Codes. It is only logical that we should take this step in our country.
On November 27 I asked the Parliamentary Secretary if the Minister agreed with these recommendations and would urge the Government to amend the Criminal Code accordingly. He indicated to me that they were currently studying the matter and woulds be looking at some recommendations in the future. I hope that tonight we will hear from the Parliamentary Secretary what changes the Government is looking at. Hopefully it will be considering changes to the Criminal Code, rather than only changes to the Environmental Contaminants Act, which I know the Department has in mind. We should be making some changes to the Environmental Contaminants Act, but we should also include these very serious offences in the Criminal Code to show the people of the country that the Government is serious and wants to get on with dealing with environmental crimes.
[ Translation)


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, as an engineer and a Member of this House, I am pleased to speak about this question which relates to the reform of Canadian legislation on crimes against the environment.

I wish to inform the House that Environment Canada is now giving careful attention to the Law Reform Commission's recently released working paper on crimes against the environment. As our hon. colleague is undoubtedly aware, the working paper is a discussion document. Its tentative recommendations are intended to bring responses from various sectors, including other federal Departments. During the comment period, Environment Canada will be preparing its observations in response to the report of the Law Reform Commission.
On the international level, Canada has treaty obligations with its neighbours. One example of such an obligation is the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, signed by Canada and the United States under which both countries are obligated to not pollute boundary and trans-boundary waters. It is this treaty which led directly to the Canada-United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. As well, Canada is a signatory to several international Conventions designed to protect the environment, such as the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by the dumping of wastes and other matter at sea and the Law of the Sea Convention. All Canada's international obligations and responsibilities would therefore have to be considered before a decision could be taken to amend the Criminal Code as contemplated by the Law Reform Commission.
There are five different levels of potential environmental rights discussed by the Law Reform Commission to which Environment Canada has turned its attention. First, there is the right not to have one's life or health harmed or endangered as a result of environmental pollution. The second is the right to a reasonable level of environmental quality, even when a specific pollutant or pollution source cannot be identified with certainly to be the cause of a specific health damage or risk. The third is the right to a reasonable level of environmental quality, a quality which is violated by pollution that deprives people of the use and enjoyment of the environment even when there are no health effects or dangers.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, we cannot agree on this complex project before scrutinizing the many aspects of the problem and the intricate considerations of an issue which has international connotations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Therefore this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 4, 1985