1987-02-17

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 332-676 to 332-685.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Andre Harvey (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, which deals with three issues to which, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the Committee requests that the Government table a comprehensive response.



COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE-FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

['Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition from citizens of a number of communities in my riding, and elsewhere in Canada. The petitioners are from Thompson, Flin Flon, The Pas, Leaf Rapids, and Churchill. In addition, there are petitioners from Calgary, High River, and Ontario. The petitioners express their concern that the Government is going ahead with the attempt to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. They believe that this will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers, and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy the necessary prescription drugs. The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.']
Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, in both official languages. Our study and recommendations are based on the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for 1985-86. Our Committee requests that the Government table a response to this report, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2).
The Committee examined the circumstances that prevented the Auditor General from completing the audit of CBC books. In presenting its findings and recommendations, the Committee wishes to help define solutions to CBC problems.

The committee's report reaffirms the importance of the CBC in Canadian broadcasting and expresses agreement with the Caplan-Sauvageau Task Force that it is upon the CBC that we must rely for an abundance of compelling radio and television programs by, for and about Canadians.
The committee regards the CBC's accounting problems as a serious matter because they resulted in CBC's management being unable to provide a full accounting to its board of directors and, as a result, prevented the corporation from giving Parliament a reliable account of its expenditures. Our hearings raised issues related to the financial management and accountability of the CBC and, specifically, the role and responsibilities of the CBC's board of directors, its audit committee, internal auditor and president.
Thus the committee recommends immediate amendments to the Broadcasting Act to clarify the role and responsibility of the CBC's board, the audit committee and the internal auditor; to expand on the rights and duties of the Auditor General; and to provide separately for a chairman of the board and a president.

I take this opportunity to thank the representatives of all three parties for their sustained efforts in drafting this unanimous report to the House. The results of our work prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that parliamentary reform is a success.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I would like to present to the House a number of petitions from the riding of Glengarry-Prescott- Russell. The petitions are signed by a total of 1,447 people who are from a variety of communities in my riding. I will not recite the petitions in every case, but merely identify the different communities involved in each one.
The petitions ask that Canada Post restore the postal service to which Canadians are accustomed, that it not proceed with the corporate plans to cut back on door-to-door delivery in urban areas, and that it not proceed with the proposed closure of 1,700 rural post offices and the privatization of 3,521 other post offices. They ask that the price of postage not be increased at the same time as Canada Post is reducing its services.
3502

February 17, 1987
Motions
The communities affected in these petitions are the communities of St. Paschal Baylon, Embrun, Bourget, St. Berna-din, Curran, L'Orignal, Hawkesbury, and a number of other villages in the constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, namely, Fournier, Alfred, Dunvegan, Rockland, Apple Hill and Chutes a Blondeau.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr, Speaker, I should like to table today some hundreds of petitions from Newfoundland to Victoria, British Columbia, signed by several hundreds of women and parents concerned about child care services.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me, to read at least the introduction of those petitions. They have been signed by women and parents urging the Conservative Governement which has recognized at the time of the annual Conference of First Ministers in November, 1986, that child care is a priority measure ensuring the support and strenghtening of the Canadian family and promoting women's economic equality.
The report postponement of the Special Parliamentary Committee on Child Care suggests that it is possible that the Conservative Government will not set aside funds in its next Budget tomorrow for the development of adequate child care services.
We also pray and call upon the Government to negotiate and sign by the end of 1987 a federal provincial agreement which provides a detailed framework for a comprehensive child care system.
I merely wish to mention it again. Those hundred of names and petitions are from all parts of Canada and I should like to table them to stess to the Conservative government that it should recognize the importance of child care services.
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to present a petition under Standing Order 106 on behalf of a large number of constituents. The petitioners are very concerned with the Government's decision to proceed with changes to the Patent Act which they believe will significantly increase the price of prescription drugs to Canadians, and make it difficult for those people who can least afford it to pay additional costs. The petitioners make the point that this will also add to the cost of provincial drug plans in terms of government pharmacare programs, which are indirectly paid by the taxpayer. The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to reconsider its decision to proceed with this measure in an effort to keep prescription drug prices to an absolute minimum.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition from citizens of a number of communities in my riding, and elsewhere in Canada. The petitioners are from Thompson, Flin Flon, The Pas, Leaf Rapids, and Churchill. In addition, there are petitioners from Calgary, High River, and Ontario. The petitioners express their concern that the Government is going ahead with the attempt to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. They believe that this will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers, and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy the necessary prescription drugs. The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties, and I believe there will be unanimous consent to the passing of the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing or special order of this House, Bill C-39, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in consequence thereof, introduced on Monday, February 16, 1987, be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to and reported by a legislative committee without amendment, concurred in at the report stage, and ordered to stand on the Order Paper for consideration by the House at third reading stage;
And that the evidence adduced and documents received by any legislative committee of this House in the First Session of the Thirty-third Parliament in relation to Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in consequence thereof, be deemed to have been referred to a legislative committee in this present session.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and deliberations, and I wish to say that the Government has seen the wisdom of removing what we thought was an inappropriate clause establishing user fees. Now that that has been done, we are anxious to proceed with this legislation.
I wish to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the initiative that the Government has taken to remove this obnoxious clause from the legislation. We are only too willing to co-operate and proceed.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition I wish to state that there has been all-Party agreement to the motion that was
February 17, 1987

presented by the Deputy House Leader (Mr. Lewis) on the government side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 59 will be answered today.


Mrs. Sparrow: In (a) 1983 (b) 1984 (c) 1985 (d) 1986 to date, in how many tenders and for what total sum of money have Calgary businesses been successful with the Department of Supply and Services?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: The number of contracts awarded to suppliers in Calgary are the following:
Year	No. of Contracts	Value $(a)	Jan. 1 - Dec. 31,1983	5,052	45,281,652(b)	Jan. 1 - Dec. 31, 1984	6,382	68,556,087(c)	Jan. 1-Dec. 31, 1985	7,154	77,278,137(d)	Jan. 1 - Dec. 31, 1986	6,429	70,379,468
The number of contracts awarded to Calgary suppliers from the regional purchasing office in Calgary did not decrease from 1985 to 1986. However, some contracts from the procurement directorates (headquarters) were not realized in 1986.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to draw to your attention under Standing Order 64(3)(a) of the House of Commons that questions on the Order Paper that are so designated are to be answered within 45 days.
I wish to bring to the attention of the government side that Question No. 60 standing in my name has been on the Order
Teleglobe Canada
Paper since December 18, 1986. The 45-day period has long since expired. The Government has breached this Standing Order. I hope the Government House Leader will see to it immediately that this question is answered forthwith, hopefully at the next sitting of the House.


Philip Derek Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly undertake to investigate and see why the question has not been answered, and bring forward an answer as soon as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions as enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When the question was originally submitted did it require or request the 45-day response time? Standing Order 64(3)(a) clearly indicates that that request has to be in place in order to expect a response within that period.


Don Boudria: The answer to that is yes, and it is so designated on the Order Paper bearing the numeral 2 beside the question which is indicated at the bottom of the Order Paper as signifying a response requested within 45 days. That is, in fact, a question placed under Standing Order 64(3)(a) of the rules of the House.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 16, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-38, an Act respecting the reorganization and divestiture of Teleglobe Canada, be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Ms. McDonald (p. 3435).
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-38, especially since yesterday, my hon. friend from the riding next door, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) who is in the House today, rose in the House to express the hope I would speak to this Bill.

February 17, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
Mr. Speaker, as you know, I was a Member of the Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, and at the time I was in the Opposition. Now we all know that the Opposition always criticizes whatever the Government does, but when it forms the Government it insists everything is all right. The Hon. Member will recall that when his Government was in power, it tabled a Bill whose purpose was to privatize Teleglobe Canada. It was a good idea at the time, but today it is no longer a good idea. They are looking for all kinds of excuses to call this a bad idea, because they are now in the Opposition. However, when they were on this side of the House, when they were the Government, there were no objections to selling the corporation. And now we are finally proceeding with privatization, they suddenly come up with all kinds of reasons why it no longer makes sense.


An Hon. Member:: What a shame.


Lise Bourgault: What a shame indeed. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, for the benefit of those who are not aware of the fact, that the overseas facilities are located in Weir, in the beautiful riding of	Argenteuil-Papineau.	Seventeen
employees work there in a magnificient setting and excellent working conditions, since they are using the very latest technology which is a real challenge for them. In fact, Teleglobe receives hundreds of Canadian visitors during the summer, who come every year to travel around this beautiful part of my riding. According to the statistics, it seems quite a few of these visitors later decided to buy a lot or a cottage because the area is so beautiful people can't help but invest their money there. I would invite Hon. Members to come and visit. In fact, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) is familiar with the area because his wife lives nearby.
Mr. Speaker, the Government would have lost its credibility by only selling Crown corporations that were not making a profit. People tend to want to get rid of the bad stuff and keep the good stuff. I believe that if the Government is to be credible, it must sell all Crown corporations according to the schedule agreed on by the Government and the Minister of State (Privatization) (Mrs. McDougall).
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that in most Opposition ridings, constituents agree with our plan to privatize Crown corporations. Mr. Speaker, there are those who object and say: Why sell the one that happens to be the most profitable Crown corporation? Mr. Speaker, simply because Teleglobe has a monopoly on international communications in Canada and because in the long run, a monopoly position can only have an adverse effect on profits and efficiency. We know that in Canada, efficiency and profits are at a very low ebb, and that is not good for our companies.
Furthermore, considering that five years from now, the market will be opened up for competition, it was essential to start by privatizing the existing monopoly. Mr. Speaker, can any business compete with a Government-supported company? Now that Teleglobe has been sold to Memotec, it will no
longer pay dividends to the Government, but it will now have to pay federal and provincial income tax as well as all the local taxes, like any other business. I, for one, believe that as a result, there will be a better distribution of the corporation's profits.
There is another objection that is always raised. It is that a country's international communications have strategic importance and thus cannot be sold off to the private sector. Mr. Speaker, a case could have been made during the war, but the argument is no longer valid at this time, when individuals and especially businesses are increasingly using a service that has now become strictly commercial. It is no longer a matter of military considerations. And so, there is no justification for having a state monopoly on what is almost exclusively a telephone service.
What counts for my constituents is lower overseas rates and the knowledge they will be protected from now on by the CRTC. Mr. Speaker, do you think Canadians will buy the Opposition's arguments, especially those made by the New Democratic Party, which would like to see the Government own more, not fewer businesses? Where will the money and the taxes come from? I have some constituents who are saying they wished the tax reform would be put through, because it is getting very expensive to pay for all this. There is no need for that, Mr. Speaker. There is no need for the Government to own private businesses.
This became quite obvious during the electoral campaign. Our constituents gave us a very clear message: Please, get out of private business. See to it that the taxpayers' money is fairly and adequately administered instead of wasting your time with business activities when you are not in competition with the private sector. This is what the Progressive Conservative government has done. We had promised that we would do so and we are doing it.
Do you not think that this is a unique and fantastic opportunity for Memotec, a young and dynamic Montreal business with everything going for it, which did not hesitate to offer more than all the other bidders? This is Quebec entrepreneurship. I congratulate the management and the employees of Memotec on this deal and I am glad to know that big businesses are not the only ones able to purchase Crown corporations and other large companies.
Memotec is certainly not as big as Bell, Power Corporation or other large companies. It is a young, growing business cased on risk capital and with serious shareholders, such as the Deposit and Investment Fund, and on the pension funds of public servants financed by the National Bank. Memotec has more to offer and it limits its operations to communications. I am convinced that, with the way Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications are controlled, the risk of conflict of interests in this company will be minimal, I therefore congratulate Memotec. I met its president when the sale was announced and he was very enthusiastic. Naturally, what I was most interested in knowing was whether there would be more
February 17, 1987

jobs in Weir, for instance, in my constituency. Of course, that is what these people want.
In the last two years, I have often visited that part of my constituency and I remember meeting the employees of the company last summer. Naturally, they were a bit worried about losing what benefits they had then if the Government sold Teleglobe. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, they will now be able to purchase shares at very favourable conditions. They will have a pension plan comparable to the public service plan and their jobs have been guaranteed. Indeed, if I may emphasize this point, under the special provisions related to the workers, Teleglobe employees will continue to come under federal jurisdiction as concerns the Labour Code and all existing collective agreements will continue to apply. As I said earlier, Memotec has offered to current employees of Teleglobe a pension plan similar to that of federal public servants.
A special provision has also been made to establish a shareholding plan for employees. This offer involves 5 per cent of shares and provides a 10 per cent discount on the purchase price. Employees who wish to apply can also obtain an interest-free loan. I would like to say that I am happy for the people of my constituency who will be able to benefit from this sale.
Last Sunday, we saw on the French network of the CBC the Gemeaux Awards which reward excellence in radio and television programs. Awards should also be given to private businesses such as Memotec since its partnership with Teleglobe is the best way in my opinion to guarantee a great future for communications in Canada, which will be of great benefit to Canadian consumers.
Mrs. McDougall, in her speech to the House of Commons in February-


Don Boudria: Order!


Lise Bourgault: stated that, and I quote: "We could have


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I should like the Hon. Member to be aware that a point of order was raised with regard to her using the Minister's name. She should refer to the Minister of Communications, the Minister of State for Privatization, or whatever. I hope she will refrain from using the Minister's name.


Lise Bourgault: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State (Privatization) (Mrs. McDougall) commented in debate, on February 13, 1987, and I quote:
But the Opposition is correct in one respect. We could have structured this transaction to get a higher sale price, but only if we had been prepared to sacrifice the interests of Canadians by allowing higher overseas telephone rates, or allowing the new buyer to charge monopoly rates, or if we had been prepared to allow foreign bidders who might have bid higher.
Teleglobe Canada
Mr. Speaker, this Government is more responsible than our Opposition friends suggest we are.
Mr. Speaker, they say this is a Crown jewel that should not be sold to the private sector. As I said, it is just as well in the private sector. Crown corporations are not viable, because they need blood transfusions from Canadian enterpreneurship. Again they say Mr. Speaker, when they are not viable they should be sold, when they are they should be kept.
Mr. Speaker, let us be serious. Any State corporation is restricted because the administrative system is complex. In her statement to the House, the Minister also said Friday last, and I quote:
In many ways Crown ownership is inhibiting to corporations. For example, Teleglobe is a well managed and profitable company, but it is extremely restricted in what it can do.
This should be repeated!
It cannot be entrepreneurial. It cannot move into new ventures built around its own technological sophistication and its link to international markets. This synergy is precisely on what Memotec proposes to build to develop new products, expanded markets, new exports, and ultimaely more jobs for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, each time a Crown corporation must make a decision in this highly competitive world, it becomes unreal. That corporation cannot compete because it has to deal with 10, 20 officials who must then conduct studies on the proposal, submit that to Cabinet, obtain a signature. And while all that is going on, Mr. Speaker, the train has left and the Crown corporation missed it.
This is why those corporations must be transferred to the private sector.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy as a Quebecer, and more still as a Canadian that this Government chose one of our own companies, that the headquarters will remain in Montreal. As we know, Montreal is going through difficult times, so this further certainly is sure to materialize the areas of communications and aerospace in Montreal. It is my belief, Mr. Speaker, that in the near future, when I go back to Weir-because naturally I would like to reassure my constituents there that I will be going back no later than next sum-mer-there certainly will be corporate developments in Weir and other people in my constituency can get a job in that magnificient industry.
I would therefore invite my Opposition colleagues to exercize caution, especially my friends in the Liberal Party. Because we very well remember at home, and you can bet I will do it, that they initially proposed the sale of Teleglobe, and now they suggest in Opposition this is no longer good.
Mr. Speaker, all this, parliamentary reform is in the air. They say we should support legislation when it is good, and criticize it when it deserves criticism. But right now the Opposition is criticizing across the board-then do not go in depth, they do not even remember what they did when they were the Government. I therefore invite them to be cautions. They should rather be commending this Government for once

February 17, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
more having been consistent with its policies, for having sold Teleglobe to a young Quebec corporation with headquarters in Montreal. Mr. Speaker, I say bravo for this Government.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I take for granted that the last remarks made by the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault) to the effect that Members of the Opposition were congratulating the Conservative Government was made in jest, and not seriously. Surely she was trying to play a little Tuesday morning trick on us in the House. We are going to laugh about this, because we know that to congratulate this Government would not be responsible. As a matter of fact, the Canadian people have now other things on their minds beside congratulating this Conservative Government. As you know, they have decided what place or rank they give this Government in public opinion pools and whether or not it deserves such congratulations as those the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau referred to a little while ago.
In her speech, the Hon. Member was saying that a Crown corporation, in view of its very structure, was unable to compete effectively because, before making a decision, a whole slew of Government officials had to be involved through the chain of command and because of this process, the Government had to divest itself of Crown corporations.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I disagree with her on this. I suggest that the Government should consider the possible divestiture of a Crown corporation only after it has ascertained that it no longer meets its political objectives; in other words, when an industry serves a national policy the preservation of a Crown corporation is necessary to meet these objectives. In such a case, there should be no divestiture. If a corporation is failing, if its structure must be changed, then the Government should change it, but keep it when it serves the public interest.
Therefore, I ask the Hon. Member opposite if under the present circumstances, where the Minister of Communication (Mrs. MacDonald) and her predecessor referred to a new communication policy, it would not have been better to wait and see what this new communication policy was going to be about before deciding what to do with this Crown corporation?


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) obviously has a job to do as a critic, but I have yet to hear him come up with an interesting proposal or solution. No! My colleague spends his days phoning left and right scrounging for a bit of gossip rather than do the job he should be doing, namely to take a good hard look at bills and attempt to uncover-and that is the role of the opposition-whatever aspect of a bill might be detrimental to Canadians and to raise it before the House in all objectivity so that this or any other Government might reconsider certain clauses which could ... We do not all claim to have a monopoly on truth. The role of the opposition, rather than chase pipe dreams and scandals, each time my colleague rises... And yet he is an intelligent man. But each time he rises, he brings up a scandal. He seems to thrive on scandal. He has nothing else of interest to add.
When I ask him-when you think, Mr. Speaker, that they are the ones who had proposed to sell Teleglobe, it is nonsense. Sheer nonsense! Those Canadians who are watching must wonder what is going on, and rightly so. Before losing the elections, the opposition had introduced a bill regarding the sale of Teleglobe. Having taken power, we conceded that the idea was a damn good one, one of the few good ideas the opposition had come up with, and now they say it is not a good idea any more. Now they say we should have kept Teleglobe.
Now, I ask, when are the Hon. Members of the Opposition going to stop shifting from side to side and focussing exclusively on pipe dreams and scandals?


Don Boudria: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on a supplementary.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, all that was very nicely put but, as you probably noticed yourself, it did not mean anything. I will repeat my question more slowly for the Hon. Member, so that she can understand it and answer it, because she did not, as you certainly noticed.
I ask the Hon. Member one more time: Given the fact that the Ministers of Communications, the two of them, because as we know Ministers have a tendency to change quite often in the Conservative Party, for various reasons-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would not like the Hon. Member to get the Chair involved in these arguments. I would hope that he would just debate whatever it is he is debating without getting the Chair involved.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I made no reference to the Chair. However, I will take your preventive note under advisement in the event that I would want to do so at some point in the future.
[ Translation]
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am coming back to the question I was going to ask the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault).
Given the fact that both Ministers of Communications have said in the past that the Government of Canada should have a new communication policy, should we not have waited for that policy to be released before selling this company? That is the question I was asking the Hon. Member previously.
Secondly, does she think it is normal for the shares of the company which acquired Teleglobe Canada to rise so much in the last few days? Is it not proof, for the Hon. Members opposite, that this Crown company has been sold at a bargain price, a price much too low under the circumstances?
February 17, 1987


Lise Bourgault: No, Mr. Speaker, the time had come to sell, although Communication Ministers had stated, as my hon. friend has just mentioned, that it would be better to wait until the policy had been announced. I think this is a responsible Government. Cabinet Members have approved the initiative of the Minister of State (Privatization) (Mrs. McDougall), and that is what is taking place.
The Hon. Member mentioned in his second question that the shares had gone up. I say this is great for Memotec and that corporation's shareholders.


Don Boudria: The current shareholders-


Lise Bourgault: Why take offence at that? It is only fair that the shares of Memotec, a corporation registered under Quebec's Stock Savings Plan, should fluctuate as the shares of any other corporation. That is normal. They could have gone down in value just as they could have gone up. I assume that the shares of Power Corp. and other tenders went down when the sale was awarded to Memotec. Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should remember that the CDIC had recommended the sale of Teleglobe because this Crown corporation had become obsolete.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member opposite. She said that it was a great thing for Memotec shareholders that their shares had gone up. My question is this: Is it not our duty to protect the interests of Canadian taxpayers, the shareholders of Teleglobe at the time of the sale of this corporation? Have we not been elected by them to sit here and defend their interests? Since the Hon. Member is likely to answer this question in the affirmative, I ask again the Hon. Member opposite: Is it not true that the Government did not get for Canadian taxpayers all the money it could have obtained? If this purchase was such a good deal for Memotec, it certainly means that Canadian taxpayers did not get all they could have had for this corporation. You cannot have it both ways. If it was such a great deal for one, the other obviously did not get enough money.


Lise Bourgault: If anybody benefited from this sale, Mr. Speaker, it was the Canadian consumers. The CRTC will now regulate their telecommunication business, they will pay less for their overseas communications, and they will be paying taxes to municipal, federal and provincial governments. A corporation such as Teleglobe which was once justified was now in fact supported by Canadian taxpayers. Now, the Government has collected dividends, and so have Canadian taxpayers. Now the time has come for the private sector to benefit from it, and for this corporation to be regulated, it had to be sold to the private sector.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) has the floor.
Teleglobe Canada


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I must begin by making a brief comment on the speech of the Hon. Member. She made a great point of the fact that the Government was being responsible by not selling this firm to a foreign company. I must say that those are sentiments with which I agree, but I wonder if this same sentiment applied to the purchase of de Havilland by Boeing which occurred earlier this year. We have seen clear cases of the Government attempting to find a bidder which turned out to be a foreign purchaser. The Government has expressed not only no apology for doing so but pride in managing to attract to Canada a grand foreign firm that would be the salvation of a particular Crown corporation. The Government cannot have it both ways.
It must accept either that it considers the ownership of a company to which it is selling a Crown corporation as important or it is not important. It cannot try to play both ends against the middle as evidenced by the Hon. Member's comments.
I would like to try to analyse this sale and show that it is somehow typical and a sign to the country of what privatization Conservative-style will mean. There is a very easy acceptance in Canada that it makes sense to sell off assets which have been built up over many years and which have fulfilled important public purposes for the sake of short-term economic returns. It seems to me that this case gives us very serious pause to reconsider that acceptance. I would hope it will force the Canadian people to raise questions that will affect not only this sale but the entire thrust of the Government's efforts to get rid of what is, after all, the historical legacy the people of Canada have built up over the years.
We must begin by asking if we have here a case of a whale being swallowed by a minnow. An extremely small firm that in its annual revenue had only something in the order of $31 million, which it received during the first nine months of 1986, is purchasing an extremely huge firm. It is purchasing this firm, not with its own money, not with money that it had somehow accumulated through a share issue to Canadians, but with money from bank loans and debentures. That is a very, very profitable way to purchase and take over another company. That is because the profits of the company compared to the actual equity invested are extremely large. It is also an extremely risky way to do a takeover.
[DOT] (U50)
This is exactly the kind of predatory takeover which has led people to talk, not about minnows taking over whales but sharks taking over whales. They then carve up the carcass, selling off bits and pieces and generally demolishing the company and its future prospects. I am not suggesting that that will necessarily take place in this case, but it smacks very much of that kind of approach to financing. It is not yet commonplace in Canada and I hope it never becomes commonplace. However, this kind of sell-out is likely to encourage the same kind of thing. It can be very devastating for the

February 17, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
private companies who experience it and I regret that is the approach taken.
The second reality we have to deal with is that even in the case of a Crown corporation which was very easy to sell, the Government still could not do it properly and competently. On the very day that the decision, a supposed secret, was announced, the shares of Memotec started to sky-rocket on the stock exchange. They went up a total of $2.38, over 20 per cent. After that Memotec announced it had an interest in taking over Teleglobe. It is very clear that there was a leak of information.
Once more we have gross incompetence demonstrated by the Government in the process it used. That is unfortunately all too typical of the Government. That is the scandal which the Member who spoke previously was unprepared to recognize. It cannot be sloughed off to the side because it involves incompetency and, I must say, dishonesty. Clearly people with insider information bought shares in Memotec when no one else had heard of that little minnow in the economic community. They bought the shares and pushed the price up by 20 per cent and, I suggest, made a tremendous and unconscionable financial killing, I hope it will rest heavily on their consciences in the future. This is a classic case of incompetence of which no Government should be guilty.
We also have to recognize there has been a tremendous effort to throw up a great smoke-screen over the price of Teleglobe so the Government can say it got a tremendous price. It has been suggested that over $600 million was poured into the Government's coffers by this deal. The Financial Post, hardly a paragon of socialist economics, after a careful analysis indicated quite clearly that the price paid is only $345 million. Once again the Government demonstrates not only its incompetence but its congenital incapacity to be forthright with the people of Canada. That is the third reality demonstrated by this sell off.
There has also been the suggestion that this deal provides protection to the consumer. All of us in this place have a tremendous concern about consumer protection. Yet nowhere in this deal is there any evidence of protection for the consumer. We have instead a five-year monopoly given to this corporate minnow so it can make as much money as possible. It is not doing that with its own money but with the bank's money. Memotec will do very well. At the end of the five-year monopoly it will likely sell the company, carve it up and give the various telephone companies a piece. It will have done handsomely without making any contribution whatsoever to the economic prosperity and well-being of Canada.
In addition to the five-year monopoly the Government has promised to bring in legislation to prevent competition involving communication lines running through Canada and those running through the U.S. The Government talks about competition and consumer protection, yet it creates a five-year monopoly and promises to eliminate certain competition through legislation.
*
It is not just those of us on the opposition side of the House who raise questions about this sale. The union representing the company in question has suggested that tremendous risk for Teleglobe is embodied in this sale. Again, the minnow swallowing the whale is apt to get indigestion. In addition, there is absolutely nothing in the legislation which demonstrates a guarantee of any sort for the workers in the company that their jobs are in any sense secure. At least there was some suggestion of that in previous privatizations. According to the unions, there is a probability that there will be lay-offs in the future in Teleglobe.
This is privatization Conservative style. It is ill-thought through. It is inconsistent. It is incompetently put into effect. It is dishonest with respect to the price which is actually being announced, and it has established monopolistic, uncompetitive conditions while it trumpets about competition to all and sundry.
That kind of approach has brought the Conservative Party to a position where only 23 per cent of the people of the country are prepared to vote for it. It is unfortunate that a Government which was elected with so much promise should have brought itself to that position, but it is completely and utterly understandable that that should be where it stands when its modus operandi, its approach to even such a simple, straightforward sale as that of Teleglobe, should be so marked by incompetence and lack of thought about what was being undertaken.
We suggest that the Government think again, that it take three months, that it allow itself, as it has claimed is its responsibility, to investigate the insider trading charge which has been made on the various stock exchanges. After such investigation is undertaken and assurances are provided to the workers in this enterprise, the Government should return to the House with a revised Bill with more honesty and more competence than it has demonstrated in this case.


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to three points made in the Hon. Member's address. He dwells upon the smallness of the purchaser as if there were something wrong with that. One could infer that he might have been in favour of the purchase had the purchaser been large. I had to wonder whether he would have voted for it if the buyer had been Northern Telecom or some other large corporation. The real test should be the price offered to the public and the ability of the company to pay it. There is a good side to the company being small. Do we not want to give smaller enterprises an opportunity to build themselves up and progress in the interests of Canada?
Second, the Member dwelt upon the leak of information which was supposed to be confidential. He was right to draw attention to that. However, he knows, as we all know, that due process is taking place. This matter is being investigated by the proper authorities. We can expect that when the investigation is complete appropriate action will be taken.
February 17, 1987

Apposite to that I would like to quote from an editorial in this week's issue of the Toronto Financial Times which refers to the leak of information which was supposed to have been confidential. The editorial writer says: "This doesn't detract from the good sense of the sale". That is the point for us to recognize and stress. This sale serves the interests of the people. With respect to the cash involved, I have different figures from his. I will quote from the February 23 issue of Maclean s magazine as follows:
The Government picked up $608 million in the deal, $102 million in cash which the telecommunications company had accumulated, as well as $488.3 million from the sale and an estimated $18 million in future income in cash.
These figures are different than mine. It seems to depend, in part, on what paper one is reading. However, I put that into the record.
I ask that the Member and the House see the wisdom of the sale which brings in cash for the taxpayers of Canada to partially finance programs which the Government has undertaken in their names. Finally, this is the kind of sale that the Government was elected to carry out. The Government was elected to privatize Crown corporations and reduce the Government's involvement in business. We are taking this step as part of that mandate. I trust that it will receive the approval of the House, as I am sure it will receive the approval of most Canadians. Indeed, if there is any criticism from the public it should be with regard to why we are not doing it faster and doing more of it.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will deal seriously with the issue of smallness. Of course, it is not the fact that the company happened to be small that is the concern. The concern is that the company happened, because of its smallness, to have to rely very heavily on bank loans in order to take over this company. In short, we have what is commonly referred to in commercial circles as a very highly leveraged company. Such a company has much less flexibility to face the ups and downs of the international business cycle than does a company which, as in this case, had over $108 million in reserves before the sale. That is the crucial difference.
With regard to small companies, it makes far more sense to encourage small companies to expand and to grow by themselves, thereby creating jobs, opportunities and exports, rather than to grow through quite ludicrous takeovers such as this. We have advocated that position quite widely.
My point in stressing the leak was to make what I think must be recognized as the ultimate criticism of this Government. While there are many Canadians who dislike the Government because of scandals, I can honestly tell the Hon. Member that it is my experience from talking to people in my constituency and elsewhere in Canada that those who put their faith in the Government have now withdrawn that faith, perhaps forever. I suggest they have done so because of a sense of incompetence in the Government, and this leak demonstrates such incompetence. I wish the Minister would get up and offer the House an apology for that incompetence in light of what has taken place.
Teleglobe Canada
Let me deal with the price. As someone who has worked for Maclean's, I hesitate to say that The Financial Post does have a slightly better grasp of financial figures than Maclean's. If we examine those financial figures in detail, there are two categories included in that $608 million. One category is dividends which could have been paid to the Government at any point. It is incorrect to say that they were received as part of the price. That reduces the price to under $500 million.
The second category is more questionable. It is a loan which was made by the Government to Teleglobe, which Memotec has taken over. Perhaps that should or should not be included in the price, but in any event, it does not mean that that money is suddenly available for the kinds of allocations to programs that the Member discussed. In fact, the $345 million I talked about seems to be the correct figure with respect to money available for allocation to programs.
Finally, the Member suggested that the Government was elected to sell our Crown corporations. I took part in the last election and I do not believe it was a promise that was either widespread or consistently made. In fact, in many cases, the opposite promise was made. Even if it was a promise, it was surely not to sell off our Crown corporations incompetently and at a low price, about which there is a sense of dishonesty. It just confirms to Canadians that the Government cannot be forthright.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has. now expired. Debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) has the floor.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Under public pressure, Mr. Speaker, I have decided that I too should speak for a few minutes in this debate on Bill C-38 which, as we all know, is aimed at privatizing Teleglobe Canada. First I should like to clear up any misunderstanding on the intentions of the Liberal Party about this question. Earlier the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault) took the floor and made a clumsy attempt to imply that the Liberals wanted to sell Teleglobe when they were in office, but now that they are in the Opposition they have had second thoughts and systematically denounce every single Government initiative. In my book, that is an exaggeration and a subjective interpretation of another Party's intentions. For openers, had the Liberals wanted to sell Teleglobe they would have done so. But they did not, and the best evidence of this is that Teleglobe is still there and still belongs to the Canadian people, and that it is the Conservative Party which is trying to unload this company. Besides, had the hon. Member for Argenteuil- Papineau wanted to be honest she could have said that, at one time, the Liberals did consider selling Teleglobe but changed their mind.
The philosophical approach of the Liberal Party of Canada is not to sell most Crown corporations, but it is not against that either. In fact we believe that selling Crown corporations is

February 17, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
something possible and even well-advised in certain cases. We study each case. For example, with respect to Canadair which the Government sold not too long ago, we were in favour of privatization for various reasons which I will sum up briefly. First, because Canadair was producing something, aircraft among other goods. We do not think that the Government has a role to play in replacing the industry to produce consumer goods. Then of course the sale rallied public support in Quebec because Bombardier was the buyer. Most Quebecers agreed with the sale, even including the labour union.
However the situation is altogether different in the case of Teleglobe. First of all, we are talking about a public utility. Teleglobe can be compared with a hydro power company or a public service such as highway and bridge maintenance. Teleglobe is a day-to-day service. Since this service has until now been provided by the Government-indeed, a benefit for Canadian consumers-we see no reason to change anything. Why fix something which runs smoothly? Everybody knows that in Canada you only need to lift the receiver off the hook to be able to talk to the person you are calling. Unfortunately it is not the same thing in all countries of the world. More particularly, international communications networks in Canada are extremely efficient. I simply cannot understand why the Government has decided to sell this company. It will now have to be regulated, yet there was no need for that before since it was a Crown corporation which set its own rates!

Why should something that is working so well be changed and given away at a price that is shamefully low?
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stated in his budget speech of 1985 that the Government's philosophy on selling Crown corporations is that Crown corporations without a policy role could be dissolved. Why is the Government selling Teleglobe before the establishment of a national communications policy? It is in clear contradiction with the philosophy previously stated by the Minister of Finance.
[ Translation]
But the aspect which I find most revolting in the sale of Teleglobe is the price that was asked. To anyone prepared to listen the Government said that the company sold for $608 million, and that is what the newspapers have been reporting. But they have been somewhat more honest than the Government and delved for facts. This is how we learned that the Government is not going to recoup anywhere near $600 million from this sale. I will try to show that it is more like $300 million.
To begin with, consider the fact that Teleglobe cash assets now amount to $102 million. Of course we have been told that Teleglobe will give that money to the Government. Good gracious, how could it be otherwise? These $102 million belong to the taxpayers. So it seems normal to me that the Government would keep this money before the company is turned over to Memotec, the buyer. But no, Sir, this is not what they are going to do. They will hand over the $102
million to Memotec and then tell them: Give it back. This leaves under the impression that the government has obtained $102 million more, which is not the case. Moreover, Memotec will also have to return to the government $18 million in dividends. This means that the stated price of $608 million is now reduced to $488 million. That is not all. Teleglobe was indebted to the government to the tune of some $145 million. If that amount is deducted, we realize that the government will only collect $343 million for that sale. It is far from the $608 million announced. The government should refrain from boasting that it is a very good deal.
That is not a very good deal for Canadians. It is not a very good deal, it is a fire sale.

In addition, we should not only consider the selling price of $343 million which makes its a fire sale, we should also consider the benefits made by Teleglobe for the Government, hence the Canadian taxpayers. In 1985, Teleglobe paid dividends of $108,100,000 to the Government. In 1986, Teleglobe paid $80 million. This means that the corporation made handsome profits for the Government. It is easy to see that by letting it go for $343 million, we are deprived of returns of almost $100 million per year. With its anticipated profits the successful company, Memotec, must surely be laughing since-


Don Boudria: -all the way to the bank!


Jacques Guilbault: It must be laughing all the way to the bank. It is paying only $340 million for a corporation that has given to the Government $108 million in dividends in 1985 and $80 million in 1986. I am sure that Memotec already has an application in for the purchase of the next Crown corporation that will be put up for sale. In my opinion it is a repetition of the great de Havilland give-away to Boeing. We see-
[ Translation]
I also want to deal with the fact that the Minister promised to the Canadian people that one of the major benefits flowing from the privatization of Teleglobe was that rates were to be reduced by 13 percent, she said, as of January 1, 1988. That is some interesting news for the Canadian public. However, the Minister must at least not take credit for announcing that news because we already knew it. As soon as November 1986, Mr. Jean-Claude Delorme, Chairman of Teleglobe, submitted his corporate plan to a committee of this House. It was already provided that in early 1988, rates would be reduced by 10 percent in view of the profitability of the company. Therefore the Minister cannot ask us to believe that the sale of Teleglobe to Memotec will suddenly bring about a rate decrease for
February 17, 1987

Canadians. It was already provided for in Teleglobe's corporate plan. That is easy to understand since it is a company that has been very profitable for a few years.
I stated earlier the huge dividends which it paid to the Government. It was therefore decided in the corporate plan to pay some of those dividends to the consumers through a decrease in rates. So much for the nice present that the Minister was announcing!

This attempt by the Minister to make us believe that this so-called generous rate reduction is coming out of the privatization is false. It had to come about in any event. This was said previously in committee in November of 1986 by Teleglobe. It is another weak attempt by the Government which has a chronic habit of embellishing things, a weak attempt to make a bad deal look good.

What about the response to that sale? Let us see what those people who are the closest to the company, that is workers who go there every day, who earn their living in that company, think about the sale. I quote from the newspaper La Presse of February 12, 1987:
The communication employees union of Teleglobe, which represents 275 white collars of the firm, critized the sale of the company. The president of the national organization, Mr. Fred Pomeroy, said that the Conservative Government has sold out a profitable company-
Those are no gentle words from the very people who work within the company. I quote again:
-that the sale is not in the taxpayers' interest.
Of course the employees are right there, they are familiar with the operations of the company, and they know what they are talking about. They are against the sale. They are against it and say that it does not serve the interests of taxpayers. I will go further by adding that it does not serve the interests of the employees, who have now been guaranteed a workplace for the next five years. However they wonder what will become of their job security after those five years, the regulation period provided under the Bill. And this is not the beginning of difficulties experienced by the unionized workers of this company, considering that for some time already the Government has been playing with the emotions of Teleglobe employees-up and down like a roller coaster. As early as 1984 there were rumours that the company would be up for sale, and this worried the employees who were wondering about their job security.
Since we are talking about past events, I might recall that when a Conservative Government was briefly in office for nine months in 1979 the Conservatives at the time were already toying with the idea of getting rid of Teleglobe. Ever since the employees have been asking themselves whether or not their heads were on the block as well.
Teleglobe Canada

I am saying that it is immoral to play with the emotions of the workers of a Crown corporation and to bring them up and down in a roller-coaster fashion. That is what has happened since 1979 in the case of Teleglobe.
Another item worth mentioning is the lack of involvement by the telecommunications carriers in this sale. They were not involved. In order to try to be involved they bid on the company. In fact, they bid twice. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the first bid did not qualify with the 40 per cent bench-mark that had been established. The second did not qualify either. The involvement of the telecommunications carriers would represent a protection to the consumer, that is, a protection against a possible by-pass of international communications. By by-pass I mean that someone can call the United States and then have that call routed overseas through a communications agency located in the United States, in other words, by the American version of Teleglobe. Some 70 per cent of communications traffic in Canada could not be routed in this fashion. I refer to the traffic of Bell Canada and B.C. Tel which are federally-regulated companies and which cannot do that. What about the rest of the traffic, the 30 per cent that could be by-passed through the United States?

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to another aspect, namely the leaks which occurred before the official announcement that Memotec was the successful bidder, before the news was made public. We all know the story, and I am not going to repeat all the details before the House. During the week before the announcement was made, the value of the shares suddenly started to rise. We know that the Toronto Stock Exchange and the Montreal Stock Exchange are investigating, and, I wonder whether the Minister is doing so as well and what is taking her so long to report to the House. Obviously, the name of the lucky bidder was known only in Government circles. Memotec didn't know, and neither did the TSE or the MSE. Only a small circle of Ministers and senior officials knew the decision had been made. I am not accusing anyone, but it is pretty clear the information had to come from that direction. Only the people who had the information could leak it. I therefore want to ask the Minister, if she intends to speak again in this debate, to report on the progress of her own investigation, so we will know where the leaks came from and who had an interest in taking advantage-


Mr. Charest:: If there were any leaks!


Jacques Guilbault: -of privileged information, and finally, how it happened.


Jean J. Charest: Has that been proven?


Jacques Guilbault: On the other side of the House they are asking whether there were any leaks. I say there were leaks.

February 17, 1987
Teleglobe Canada


Jean J. Charest: No, I asked whether it had been proven?


Jacques Guilbault: Whether it was proven?


Jean J. Charest: Yes, whether it was proven, that is what we are asking!


Jacques Guilbault: You will have a chance to ask questions later on, but here is part of the answer. When shares start rising all of a sudden on the stock exchange, and then people tell us there were no leaks, well I say the onus is on these people to prove there were none.


Jean J. Charest: That s a new wrinkle! The whole system of justice in Canada has changed. The whole principle of the burden of proof is no more!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. In two minutes there will be an opportunity to ask the Hon. Member questions or comments. I would like the Hon. Member to be able to finish his debate.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for cutting off the junior mini-minister who is trying to get involved in my speech.

This company has been sold cheaply, at a give-away, fire sale price for a public utility that should not have been sold in the first place. To summarize, unfortunately Teleglobe has been sacrificed on the altar of privatization.
[ Translation]


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I had not planned to speak following the speech of my hon. colleague from Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) this morning, but since I have been irresistibly invited to do so, I shall now say a few words. First, I imagine that, now that he can sit down for a few moments and reflect on what he said, he is probably regretting having called me the junior mini-minister from Sherbrooke. Such behaviour is clearly unusual on the part of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques, whom I respect deeply. I am sure that, now that he is sitting down, he will be thinking that he should not have made such a comment, that he does not usually lower himself to petty personal attacks, especially against people with whom he usually has good relations, and that people who behave in this way or use such arguments are running out of things to say and are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I would like to say one thing about another of his comment, and I am certain that he will want to correct what he said. He insinuated, and such insinuations are common practice for the present opposition, that there might have been suspicious activities in the sale of shares. This is a possibility which no one is denying. It is why there is an investigation. However, you overstepped what any Canadian would find acceptable as
well as the democratic principles of our society when you said that, because the price of shares had increased, the onus of proof was on those who had purchased these shares or on someone else to prove that there had been no illegality, immorality or irregularity in this sale. This is completely wrong and you know it. Even to question the application of this principle in Canadian society would go against all the democratic principles this House stands for. I am certain that my colleague for Saint-Jacques will want to use this opportunity, at least to tell us exactly what he thinks about this matter.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to return to the comments of the mini-minister. He is asking that I regret calling him a mini-minister. I am quite ready to do that. I think he is right. We should refrain from personal attacks. By the same token, I imagine he will regret having interjected on top of his voice from across the House, which led me to label him in a way he did not appreciate. As a matter of fact, I was not attacking, I as the assailed was simply using defence.
Coming back to the issue of possible leaks, in answer to the Minister's question I would not take a legalisitic view of the matter as he does.
Actually, the Government is not before the courts fighting a charge of having caused leaks. It is rather that the media and Canadians across the land believe there has been a leak. It is in that sense I am suggesting the Government should clear the air. It is not my business, I am not part of that Government. But if I were on that side of the House, and rumours were circulating there had been leaks, I would feel the onus was on me to defend myself. I do not mean that in the legal sense, Mr. Speaker, but in terms of perception. So much so that we have been paddling about for some months in an atmosphere that does not reflect favourably on the Government in terms of perception, integrity and those matters, on which I have no intention of dwelling, because it is not the subject at hand.
That is why I say that, as reported in various newspapers, some Canadians believe that there must have been leaks for the shares to appreciate so quickly. The Government should feel the need to dispel any doubt concerning this matter.
While the Minister was shouting from his seat in the House, he asked me a question: Are you saying that there has been a leak? I could not certify that there has been one. But I hear everywhere that there could have been a leak. And I am quite concerned that there could have been a leak of this type from the Government. I did say there could have been- We have not reached the point where we know for sure that there had been a leak, but just the fact that the Canadian public may think that privilege information such as this may have seeped through the Government process is quite unacceptable. And especially in the interest of the governing party. This is why I tell Conservative Members to please disperse this cloud of suspicion for your reputation is at stake.
February 17, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since there are no more questions, on debate, the Hon. Member for Sarnia Lambton (Mr. James).


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to again address the House on this Bill. The Bill before us today is very important, and I am delighted to have the opportunity to clarify some of the points that have been made.
First, I wish to make mention of a point about no guarantees for employment, which was made by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) in an earlier statement or speech in the House.
I should like to bring to the Hon. Member's attention a press conference held on February 11 and attended by representatives of the company and members of the media. Mr. McKenzie, an official of the company, was asked the following question:
-will there be management changes at Teleglobe or any staff lay-offs, anything like that? Any surplus people?
Mr. McKenzie answered as follows:
I am glad you asked that question. Absolutely not. The Teleglobe, as we all know and as the Minister already indicated, is a very well run company... and his people are very, very good managers. One of the key points of our bid is that management is to be retained and all of the employees are to be retained. In fact, you know, that is the strength of Memotec-
He want on to say:
And we need the support of those people, the help of those people. We need those people to be motivated and enthusiastic towards what we are all trying to do. There will be absolutely no changes. In fact, we hope to create more employment through the synergies of the two groups. And that is the point we are trying to make, that we will create new employment opportunities, not decrease employment opportunities. I think this is a very positive story.
I think that answers the point raised by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor in which he attempted to cast suspicion.
The sale of Teleglobe is a good deal for the Government of Canada, for the employees of Teleglobe and, indeed, for all Canadians. The delaying tactics of my colleagues, especially those in the New Democratic Party, are not only unwarranted but unjustified. It is true that there is an ongoing investigation, as a previous speaker mentioned, but it is not an unusual occurrence. The Toronto Stock Exchange routinely investigates increased activity in any stock. The Minister is assisting in this investigation and is working very closely with the TSE to have the issue investigated. She is in constant contact with the Exchange and has requested her Deputy Minister to provide whatever details and assistance is necessary.
I am confident that the questions in the minds of the Opposition will be answered very satisfactorily and very directly. Surely the Opposition is not suggesting or accusing Memotec of any wrongdoing. It is necessary for us to allow the investigation to go forward, even as we move forward with the speedy delivery of the legislation to the appropriate legislative committee.
Teleglobe Canada
Once again I will go over the details of the bidding process and the sale to Memotec just to clarify some points. On November 19, 1986 the Minister announced that proposals would be received for the sale of Teleglobe based upon the comprehensive policy positions and the conditions of sale provided by the Government.
On January 9, 1987 CDIC received seven bids for the purchase of Teleglobe. A series of meetings between CDIC and the seven bidders were held to clarify points on the bids. Of course, these clarifications were needed by CDIC.
On January 27, 1987 the CDIC board met and considered the bids, including in its considerations a meeting with each of the seven bidders. At the conclusion of that meeting the management of CDIC was instructed to correspond with each bidder to allow them to consider their bids in light of the technical amendments to the draft agreement and the purchase of sale. In light of those changes, as per normal business practice, bidders were invited to refine, if they so chose, their proposed price for the purchase of Teleglobe.
On February 5, 1987 the CDIC board again met to consider the revised bids and determine its recommendations to the Government.
The next step is the crucial one, so I invite all Hon. Members of the Opposition to listen closely. The decision of CDIC was hand delivered by Mr. Paul Marshall to the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall) on February 8. The CDIC recommendations were taken to cabinet committee by the Minister on February 9 and a final decision was made by Cabinet at 5 p.m. on February 10, and the Toronto Stock Exchange was notified immediately.
These are the accurate details of the process. There were no difficulties with the bidding process and the utmost of secrecy was maintained until the date Cabinet made its decision.
It is important to remember that any of the six bidders could have closed the deal and had the financial backing to support the acquisition. The hue and cry from the Opposition about it being a leverage buy-out obscures one very important business point. To acquire a large and viable company such as Teleglobe, there are few companies in the country which could have done so without loans, and we were determined to keep Teleglobe in Canada.
I despair at the disparaging remarks the Opposition is making about the integrity and viability of Memotec. For the past few days in the House we have heard over and over again about the minnow that swallowed the whale. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with that? Would the entire sale have been more digestible if we had sold Teleglobe to a major conglomerate? No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think so, because the Opposition would then have railed at the notion of too many assets in the hands of too few companies.
The second point I wish to make is to put an end to the Opposition's scare tactic that our Government is bent and determined, not only to privatize all Crown corporations, but

February 17, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
additionally somewhere along the line-opposition members have this mistaken notion-we are to move into the privatization of social programs. I cannot understand from where this would even come. It guess it is just rhetoric, something to say to fill in their 20 minutes.
Just to keep a balance on things, I want to take a moment to quote from the Minister's statement last Friday when she said:
Our policy is to better manage all Crown corporations, to wind down those entities which are no longer required, and to privatize on a case by case basis those Crown corporations where the public interest can be better served through private ownership with public regulation as and when required.
This point by the Minister must be remembered and addressed. It is our policy-and indeed it is sound policy-to examine individual cases. I can without hesitation assure the House that we will never move to privatize arbitrarily every Crown corporation, nor will we turn over to the private sector our existing social programs.
Let us take a minute to examine the Minister's statement in respect of private ownership and public regulation. Once again the Opposition has seen fit to muddy the waters. The new Teleglobe, unlike the old Teleglobe, will be subject to CRTC regulations for as long as the legislation remains in place. The five-year reassessment proposed in the legislation applies only to the monopoly situation, not to the CRTC regulations. This point has been mistakenly raised by the Opposition. It must be made very clear that rates offered by Teleglobe will be subject to CRTC scrutiny for many years to come.
Consumers will benefit from an average rate reduction on overseas telephone calls and from CRTC regulations in connection with the sale. Employees of Teleglobe Canada will benefit from a pension plan which is comparable to the current government plan. Additionally, they will have an opportunity to purchase equity in the new firm on extremely favourable financial terms.
Lastly, Teleglobe Canada will benefit by being able to pursue new opportunities, expand and grow under skilled private sector management. I would like to quote from a statement made by former Liberal Minister of National Revenue as reported in Hansard for May 28, 1984 while this House was debating second reading of then Bill C-25. He said:
The fifth part of the Bill-concerns CDIC's subsidiaries: Canadair Limited, The de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd., Eldorado Nuclear Limited, Teleglobe Canada and, in the near future, Pecheries Cartier Inc. and Fishery Products
International Ltd.The clause deals with the relationship between the CDIC
and its subsidiaries, and the aim to change the status of those subsidiaries to private sector corporations.
Obviously the Official Opposition has changed its stand somewhat from that of 1984.
Similarly I quote the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) during the debate on second reading of the Canadair Bill. On December 1, 1986, he said:
We in the NDP are not necessarily against privatization. We are not saying in every case we should not privatize; we are saying you have to have sound economic reasons for it.
I have sat in this House and listened for the past few days to the Opposition's rhetoric and waffling. It seems the minds and opinions change to fit the issue of the day. I am reminded of Prime Minister Mackenzie King who also had a gift for speaking his mind clearly. He said:
Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription.
I believe that in this case the sale of Teleglobe is not only a good deal but a great deal, and I believe the facts speak for themselves.


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in hearing the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) describe how great is this Teleglobe deal. He notes particularly the observation of my friend from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) about the possibility that the sale of some Crown corporations might be appropriate if there were sound economic reasons. Does the Hon. Member think that the reasoning here is sound?
To put it in the context of the Government's actions in the matter of regulation of various services in the federal area, which communications obviously is, what we see the Government doing is reducing the amount of regulation that has been applied in the past. What the Government is doing with Teleglobe is putting it into private area responsibility. The Government is taking out an international communications monopoly in Canada and turning it over to a private interest which, of necessity in the private sector, has other concerns than the public interest. First, it is obsessed with its own profitability. Every member of the Government would insist on that. Recognizing that that is the preoccupation of the privatized Teleglobe and the only control over the situation is staff regulation, what kind of assurance do we really have that a privatized Teleglobe will serve the public interest as it should?	.
We have a company which is, in the fullest sense, a utility in the communications area. Utilities tend to be monopolies. What has been recognized for 100 years by every economist, no matter how deep his or her dedication is to competition, is that monopolies need to be regulated. A Government that has no vision for creative regulation but wants to get out of it will take a utility and put it into the hands of private interests obsessed with their own profitability rather than serving the public interest. What kind of sound economic reasoning can one put forward for taking this vital communications utility and putting it into private hands, as the Government has done?


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased my hon. friend has asked that question. This sale gives a lot of opportunity for providing jobs. I know the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Nipigon (Mr. Epp) is very concerned about that, I say that sincerely, and I think that is very important. The employees are pleased with the transaction and I would think the Hon. Member would be very positive about that. I cannot recall seeing any statements that they were unhappy.
It has been said, and I think the Hon. Member heard me read a statement made by Mr. McKenzie at a press conference
February 17, 1987

on the situation and his belief about how important the employees will be to Memotec. I think the Hon. Member would have to agree that it has been written extensively in Canada, and I tend to believe it, that when employees have the opportunity to purchase shares in the company for which they work, have the opportunity to buy those shares at less than market price with interest-free money loaned by the company, it goes to excellent working conditions.
The rationale for divestiture of Crown corporations is to see them expand, grow and get into other areas not encumbered by the bureaucracy and the Government which really are not the best at being in business. The Hon. Member has a little trouble agreeing with me on that because the philosophy of the New Democratic Party is that the state runs everything.
In the May, 1986 Budget is this statement:
We expect the results of returning federal Crown holdings to the private sector, that privatization will reduce the size of the Government and leave room for more private sector initiative which will promote market competition and more efficient allocation of resources. It will improve company efficiency.
We can talk about a lot of things that are of value in this sale. It is important that we are doing good things for the people who work for Teleglobe and for those who will be able to work for the new important company with its new jobs and new opportunities.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, with respect to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Sarnia Lambton, he has completely refused to answer the questions. There was not the slightest recognition of the fundamental difficulty that I put to him, namely, that the Government is backing away from regulation and making it easier for companies, whatever industry they may be in, to pursue their own ends rather than serve the public interest. Here we have a monopoly being put into private hands. What kind of protection is there for the public interest? The Hon. Member has not provided any of that. He has talked about other things. Let me challenge him again to respond. He said in passing that enhancement of competition was the goal of privatization. That is completely missing the point I was making. More particularly, the Hon. Member began by praising the increase in employment that will result from this sale. The Hon. Member will have to concede, surely, that there are no guarantees in the sale at all? The Hon. Member was forced to read a press conference and the statement by a principal of the new owner to defend of that. But there are no assurances. This is another of those cases of putting all sorts of things forward before the Canadian public without any assurance. That is the form of Government action far too often these days.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Perhaps the Hon. Member might want to answer that question when Orders of the Day are called after Question Period today.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, Canada conducts over $50 billion worth of trade annually with countries other than the United States. This represents transportation fees of about $5 billion per year. Of that amount, less than 1 per cent is carried on Canadian ships. Twelve billion dollars of this trade is conducted with countries which have enacted legislation which will only allow cargo to be carried on ships of their national registry. Canada is the only country, to my knowledge, which does not allow tax exemptions of some sort or another on earnings from carriage of deep-sea cargoes. Even the United States and the United Kingdom allow companies to defer taxes indefinitely.
There are currently 120 ships owned by Canadian companies registered abroad which do not hire Canadians. These companies have expressed a desire to be able to operate out of Canada but state that their greatest hindrance is the present tax regime of the federal Government. In light of the fact that over 50 per cent of Canadian merchant seamen are currently unemployed and the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is bringing down his Budget Wednesday night, I would ask the Minister to make the necessary changes in the tax system so that these merchant seamen can be put back to work.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, on KLM Royal Dutch Airline flights 691 and 677 from Amsterdam to Toronto, a total of 22 illegal immigrants were apprehended by immigration officials last week. These individuals deliberately tore up their passports and other identification, thus committing an illegal act. If these individuals were legitimate refugees, there would be no need for them to destroy their documentation.
Under these circumstances we are not compelled by international law to admit such law-breakers into Canada. I strongly urge the Government not to give these individuals the right to land in Canada and to return them immediately back to their points of departure where they presumably had the legal right to be present since they boarded these flights. There

February 17, 1987
is no need to have such abusers stay in Canada at great cost to the Canadian taxpayer.
Canada must send out a clear message that those who cheat and lie will never be welcome in Canada. Moreover, the airlines are willing to co-operate as well.



PENSIONS


Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, for almost fifteen years now the employees of the Correctional Service of Canada, more specifically correctional officers, have been seeking the right to retire after 25 instead of 35 years of service, as is the case for most public employees, with the exception of air controllers, the RCMP and the Armed Forces who may choose to retire after 20 to 25 years of service.
The federal Government must take into consideration the risks, dangers and stress associated with the duties of correctional officers. The extremely difficult working conditions of our correctional officers fully justifies retirement after 25 years of service.
Again recently the Minister said he had the intention of taking action on this matter. It is now more than time to do something and, hopefully, tomorrow's Budget should cover this measure of fairness with respect to our correctional officers.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, six years ago some 14,000 people were employed across Canada in the shipbuilding and ship repair industry. Today that number has been reduced to about 5,000. We know that there is no free market in shipbuilding today but still we do not have a rational shipbuilding policy.
It is in the interest of all of us to maintain a healthy, modern shipbuilding industry to meet defence and commercial requirements. Canada is a maritime nation, heavily dependent upon trade, and we must not permit our marine industrial base to wither and fall. One preventive step is to impose a tariff on ships purchased offshore to work or to fish in Canadian waters. Another is an acceleration of the naval, Coast Guard, and government vessel procurement programs. Given fair competition, Canadian shipyards can do much to provide Canadians
with wide employment in shipyards and in hundreds of related industries. They need help and they need it now.



TARIFFS


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the Great Depression, two World Wars, a small and spread out population, recessions, inflation, and overwhelming intrusion and competition from the United States-none of these could kill Canada's book-publishing industry. However, collecting $36 million for the Budget through the Government's current imposition of the 10 per cent retaliatory tariff on books can. Not only is the tariff a tax on reading and a disguised form of censorship but it discriminates only against English-language books, and it has seriously harmed individual unit sales in the Canadian book industry. Publishers alone estimate they will lose $15 million by absorbing the tariff duty this year.
Some Canadian publishing houses are incurring losses as high as $30,000 a week in a gallant effort to hold on to their customers. They cannot continue much longer. With this loss of income, they have less cash available to publish Canadian works. I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to take the opportunity to remove this regressive countervail tax on reading in his Budget tomorrow so that the Canadian book industry can once again flourish in Canada. As well, this was a poor policy response to the shakes and shingles countervail in the first place.



RAILWAYS


Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. Janies):: Mr. Speaker, on February 10, 1987, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) made a statement in this House concerning the proposed Waverley Street grade separation. This statement requires clarification. The Hon. Member suggested that a tragic accident might not have occurred had the federal Government followed through on a commitment made by his Government in 1984 to build an underpass at that location. This implication is false.
On March 27, 1985, the City of Winnipeg requested that government funding be reallocated from the Waverley Street grade separation to Keewatin Street which has a higher safety risk. Based on those facts the City of Winnipeg set the Keewatin Street crossing as top priority. A new application was submitted to the Canadian Transport Commission on November 27, 1986, by the City of Winnipeg, and is now
February 17, 1987

being considered. The promised funding is available and will be allocated based on the CTC's recommendation. In future the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry may wish to get his facts straight before condemning this Government's policy.



REFUGEES


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am reading excerpts from an informal translation of a leaflet given to Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugee claimants entering Canada from the United States at Fort Erie, Ontario. It says:



FOR THOSE THOSE WHO BELIEVE THEY ARE REFUGEES FROM EL SALVADOR AND GUATEMALA

[Stage Direction]
I.	The Immigration Officer has written a report that reads: you violated Canadian Law because you came across the border without bringing a passport and/or without bringing an immigrant visa.
9. The Minister's Permit is described in Section 37 of the Canadian Immigration Act. This section says that this permit can be annulled at any time by written order if you violate other Canadian laws or if the government decides you are not a refugee.
II.	For example, if you prefer robbery to work, you would spend time in jail, the government would revoke your permit, and would deport you to the United States.
This leaflet not only denies Canada's regulations which protect Salvadorans and Guatemalans, but it also suggests they are likely to be criminals. I call on the Government to revoke this letter and apologize for this racist slur.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, my constituents of Argenteuil-Papineau and more particularly the residents of Lachute have had one more reason to be proud because, last Saturday when prizes were given at the Eight Mercury Awards organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Quebec, a young Lachute firm, Mobilier Form-D, received the Mercury Award given to a new business.
Mr. Speaker, Mobilier Form-D management have succeeded in making a name for themselves as a result of their quality products and avant-garde design in an extremely competitive sector. Congratulations to the shareholders and employees who can righfully be proud of this prestigious award which proves they had every reason to have faith in their own aspirations.
I also want to commend Mirabel's Nationair airlines for being nominated for the second consecutive year, IBM Canada
for deserving the 1987 Mercury Award, and the 71 Quebec firms which took part in this event.
To Quebec firms the Mercury Awards are what the Gemeaux awards are to artists, craftsmen and producers of the artistic and cultural community. Mr. Speaker, we must encourage and support this initiative taken by Quebec s Chamber of Commerce, and congratulate the many people responsible for the success of these Mercury Awards.


An Hon. Member:: Very well said.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, last May 26, a 26 year old woman was raped by three aggressors in Sherbrooke. There was so much violence used during this sexual assault that the victim has not been able to go back to work since. Last December 3, a jury unanimously found the three aggressors guilty and each one was sentenced last January 27 to five years in prison. However, the very next day, their case was appealed and they were set free. The reasons given were that the rapists had no criminal record, that they are young and that they are successful at school and in sports.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that her aggressors are out means that the victim, Dominique, has to be very careful about what she does and to try not to attract any attention. Her assaulters have been freed, they live in the same city as she does, Sherbrooke, which is not New York, and she is afraid of reprisals. If anyone should be hiding out of fear and shamed, it should be the aggressors, not the victim.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the Minister of Justice review this case and that the appeal be heard as quickly as possible, and also that the aggressors be put in jail. If they are in prison, justice will perhaps be done more quickly in the case of this odious and serious crime.



SMALL BUSINESS


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Solidarity Fund of the Quebec Federation of Labour for investing a few weeks ago over $200,000 in a high technology company located in Sainte-Foy, in my constituency, thus protecting and creating jobs. In addition, the Fund will invest $2 million in an office tower to be built in the Hull region at the end of the month.

February 17, 1987
It is the first time in North America that a union creates a fund whose major objective is to protect and create jobs by investing in the Quebec small business sector.
Once more, I congratulate the Solidarity Fund of the Quebec Federation of Labour and its president, Mr. Claude Blanchette!



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I know all Members of Parliament will want to join in welcoming the announcement of the release of Iosif Begun, a leading Jewish dissident in the U.S.S.R. who had been imprisoned for supposed anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda. It is heartening that his release comes after the release of another 150 prisoners this month. We know that there are still several thousand prisoners of conscience incarcerated in the Soviet Union. We hope the Soviet Union will release many of them and that many of the Jewish dissidents will again find it possible to leave the Soviet Union.
We note and regret the fact that beatings and repression are still used against those from the Soviet Union who wish to demonstrate that such treatment of dissidents is the denial of human rights. Such incidents are sharp reminders that there is a great disparity in what is said about human rights by the Soviet Union and what actually happens to dissidents in that country.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the national finances we have turned the corner and can now see the light at the end of the tunnel. For the first time in many years the national accounts show an operating surplus. The third quarter results are now in for 1986 and reveal a small surplus, about $1 billion, over the preceding 12-month period.
Huge public debt service charges, the legacy of years of mismanagement by former Liberal Governments, still result in large over-all deficits, but the trend toward reduction has definitely been established. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is to be congratulated on his exemplary performance to date and urged to stay the course.



VISIBLE MINORITIES


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, it has become painfully obvious that the Government has placed the Japanese Canadian redress issue on the political back-burner. When the current Minister responsible for multiculturalism, the Government's third, assumed his responsibilities, there was great fanfare that the Tories had finally found the ideal individual to address this most sensitive national matter. However, we have heard precious little since.
The Japanese Canadian community was promised before, during, and after the election campaign that the Conservative Government would conduct negotiations on redress and that a settlement would be worked out with the National Association of Japanese Canadians. Regrettably, both previous Tory Ministers ignored these two principles. Now we have the current Minister who is still occupied with obtaining cabinet approval on the process to follow.
This kind of action is simply an offensive response to what were clear promises made to a very important segment of Canadian society. It is about time that the Government finds its morality in dealing with Canadians. It should begin to honour its commitments, fulfil expectations which it created, and re-establish the people's confidence in their national Government and national institutions.
Otherwise, the Government should do everyone a favour and step aside so that Canadians can receive the kind of representation which they demand, rightfully deserve, and have not had for the last two and a half years.



CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian International Development Agency was formed back in the 1960s to administer the major portion of Canada's official assistance to developing nations. New projects to be funded by CIDA include $310 million to the World Food Program for the next two years, $89 million worth of canola oil and technical assistance to India, $13 million worth of canola oil as food aid to Pakistan, and $40 million for the next three years to the Canadian Food Grain Bank which is primarily a humanitarian relief agency.
These development and assistance programs will involve more than $450 million worth of agricultural commodities, many of which originate in western Canada. These projects are good news for they not only provide help for the developing countries, but also for our own farmers whose commodities
February 17, 1987

form the basis for the assistance. The Government should be commended for its continuing support of these initiatives.



ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, six days ago Kevin Daniels started a hunger strike on the steps of the Saskatchewan Legislature. Mr. Daniels, a non-status Indian, has taken this extreme form of protest in order to draw attention to the plight of the indigenous people of Canada.
He hopes that his action will spur federal and provincial Governments to include land claims and self-government in the Constitution.
In a conversation I had with Mr. Daniels yesterday, he told me that the suicide of a close friend was the final reason that led him to go on a hunger strike. While I do not encourage anyone to undertake a hunger strike, it is a sad commentary on our society that somebody feels compelled to use this extreme form of protest.
The aboriginal people of Canada want to take control of their destinies. They are tired of welfare dependency, unemployment and high suicide, crime and alcoholism rates. They must be given the resources that were promised them so many years ago. They are tired of waiting.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, several months ago Canada Post introduced its latest contraption under the name supermailbox. This supermailbox could do almost anything and could guarantee mail delivery- should I say mail pick up-24 hours a day, seven days a week. That did not quite happen.
First, everyone and his cousin could break into the supermailbox with their bare hands. Then one's key could open personal mailboxes everywhere. Of course, this was part of the safety feature of the new supermailbox. Now people cannot break into these supermailboxes any more and there is no need to worry about the keys. The latest feature of the supermailbox is inaccessibility.
For four days last week my constituents in the Orleans area had no access to their supermailboxes because it snowed in Orleans and Canada Post could not keep up with the snow removal. Canada Post should install these supermailboxes where they really belong, in the junkyard.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since the federal Government cannot reach a decision on its refugee policy and is depending on Quebec to pay the several million dollars in costs incurred while coping with the recent influx of thousands of people claiming refugee status, and since the Minister, aware that more than 80 per cent of these people arrived in Montreal, nevertheless expects the provincial Government and charitable organizations to pay the cost of dealing with a problem that is after all a federal responsibility, why, after taking the credit for a humanitarian act, is the federal Government refusing to pay the bill and live up to its responsibilities as the Government of this country?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think the last part of the statement the Leader of the Opposition just made is particularly false. The federal Government is paying 50 per cent of all costs connected with the Canada Assistance Plan, under which program the Government of Quebec is providing many of the services being given to the people who have applied for refugee status. The Government of Quebec has made a specific request, considering the considerable influx of people in Quebec at this time. I said yesterday that the federal Government did not have the funds in its Budget to meet a specific request by one province, and would in any case have to ensure that if the same situation were to occur in another province, it could take the same kind of action. In the present situation, as far as cost sharing by the provinces and the federal Government is concerned, both parties, and it has always been that way, pay 50 per cent of the costs incurred by the influx of refugees.


REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows perfectly well that every week over 1,000 people are applying for refugee status, and most of them are now in Montreal. Quebec does not have the necessary funds to pay for their food and board. Why won't the Minister provide the funds to deal with a problem that, after all, is a federal responsibility and arises from the lack of clear-cut policy in this area? Why won't he meet Quebec's request for funds?


Benoît Bouchard: This is exactly the same question, and the same answer applies. Again, the Government of Canada has spent a lot of money on the refugee issue. I agree we are experiencing an exceptional influx of refugees in this country. I said yesterday and I say it again today that we are going to take

February 17, 1987
Oral Questions
specific action with respect to refugees, and we will soon be introducing a Bill to deal with the substantial increase in refugees. Now as far as the respective jurisdictions of Quebec and Ottawa are concerned, we are each doing what our respective Governments have an obligation to do.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONSULTATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of dealing in a humanitarian way with refugees coming to Canada has been handled very poorly. The Province of Quebec claims that there has been absolutely no consultation on the new law that the Minister describes. Will the Minister give an undertaking to consult in detail with Quebec and the other provinces about the new refugee project? Or is he really admitting that this is another sad case of failure in federal-provincial relations?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I don't think I have anything to learn about federal-provincial relations from the Liberal Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I had a three-hour meeting with the Quebec Minister of Immigration. My hon. colleague, the Minister of State (Immigration) did as well. My predecessor, the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) also had a meeting with Quebec last May, when changes were proposed to the provisions for the recognition of refugee status in the Immigration Act. I have never refused to attend a meeting, and there will be more meetings if necessary.
I think there is sufficient evidence that in all our Departments, there has been a continuing emphasis on regular meetings with the Government of Quebec.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last Friday the thirteenth the Minister of State and Hon. Member for Joliette was interviewed on The Journal. He was asked whether he had discussed with the Prime Minister his involvement in the $5,000-a-piece reception. He answered as follows:
No, never... I did not speak with the Premier on the subject. I think I can take my responsibility on this matter.
How can the Prime Minister explain that as of last Friday some 13 months elapsed since the facts were brought to his
attention in January of 1986 and that he has not yet discussed the Minister's involvement?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I answered that and all questions related thereto completely last Friday.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHEN PRIME MINISTER WILL MEET WITH MINISTER
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable that, in the last 13 months, the Prime Minister did not find it necessary to meet with his minister to discuss his role in these receptions where it cost $5,000 per person to get on board the train to "Contractland".
I would like to ask the Prime Minister when he will accept his responsibilities and meet with his minister to discuss his future in Cabinet.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it seems to be impossible for the Hon. Member to ask a question about the behaviour of another Member of Parliament without making any calomny or discriminatory comment. I think that this shows the state of mind on the other side of the House. They are not looking for answers to their questions, they simply want to destroy reputations and drag people through the mud. I answered your questions last Friday, including the most foolish and the most small-minded.
I answered them fully!


FISHERIES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. In the discussion of the possibility of a new agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of France pertaining to the fishery off the coast of Newfoundland the Minister said the following in the House on January 28:
Our commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is that any price which is too high for Newfoundland and Labrador is too high for Canada.
The next day he went further and stated:
If, in negotiating the conditions required by France are unsatisfactory to the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador-there will indeed be no agreement.
I wish to ask the Minister if he stands by those two commitments now?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, those comments, and many that have been added since, including references to the possible outcome of a series of negotiations which will unfold over the coming 11 months,
February 17, 1987

all indicate the objective of the Government in reaching a satisfactory referral to international arbitration of the long unresolved boundary question and the question of interim fishing arrangements beyond the present fishing year. Those agreements will only be concluded in accordance with full consultation with our colleagues from Atlantic Canada, Newfoundland, and in particular the Minister of Transport, to the satisfaction of the fishermen and the people of Atlantic Canada.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: I remind the Minister on this very important matter, and he will recall, that the people of Newfoundland, as well as the Government of Newfoundland, felt betrayed by the Government by the process undertaken about a month ago. What the Minister stated in the House on January 28 and 29, which I have just quoted to him, was not that they would simply be consulted, but that there was a commitment by the Government that if the deal was unsatisfactory to the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to the Government, that there would be no deal. Does the Minister stand by that today, or are we witnessing another betrayal of a commitment to the Government of Newfoundland?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, as is so typical of the Opposition in these very difficult matters, they would prefer to have us quit before we get going.
In fact there is an agreement setting out a timetable to negotiate two very important agreements which will bring untold benefit to the fishermen of Atlantic Canada. I am pleased to report that in my discussions with the Atlantic Council of Fisheries Ministers yesterday in Moncton, all five Fisheries Ministers who represent the five Atlantic provinces have agreed to continue to participate in negotiations and consultations according to the format set out, and that four of those provinces appear to agree entirely with the course of action the Government has followed.


ACCESS TO NORTHERN COD STOCK
John Edward Broadbent: I remind the Minister that we are talking about a commitment. The Government of Newfoundland has made clear that it recognizes the constitutional right of the federal Government to sign an international agreement, and it is not challenging that, but it also said that there is one matter that it regards to be fundamental and ought not to be put on the negotiating platter, namely, access to the northern cod. Will the Minister now live up to his commitment to the people of Newfoundland, and not put northern cod on the platter?


Mr. Crosbie:: The 1972 treaty puts it there.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The Government of Canada has agreed with France to a process wherein a long-standing border boundary grievance
Oral Questions
will be resolved to the benefit of the fishing industry and the fishermen of Atlantic Canada, including Newfoundland and Labrador. Rather than pre-empting the process and writing it off, as the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party would prefer, we intend to proceed with the support of Atlantic provinces, as I have indicated, and in accordance with the commitment that the Prime Minister made to the Minister of Transport last week, and I quote what the Prime Minister wrote in his letter:
At the conclusion of the negotiation, the Government of Canada will determine, considering all advice received, whether any proposed agreement is in the long-term interests of Canada and Newfoundland.
The letter further states:
The outcome must be in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada or there will be no deal.


CANADIAN POSITION
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister on the same topic. In the letter that was just quoted from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Transport, who at that time claimed that he was the lead Minister in the fish deal with the French, it was stated:
The outcome must be in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada or there will be no deal.
However, this morning, when the Minister of Fisheries was asked who Ottawa would side with if no compromise was reached, he said: "It would be unwise to take an arbitrary position now that might jeopardize the process." He refused to repeat the commitment of the Prime Minister to the people of Newfoundland. Why is there a clear and unmistakable difference between what the Prime Minister wrote and what the Minister of Fisheries said this morning on the CBC? Who speaks for Canada? Why is there this discrepancy? And why is the Government selling out the rights of Newfoundland fishermen?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is no disparity. I note the Leader of the Opposition seems to find amusing that one of his members would ask: "Who speaks for Canada?" Clearly the Liberal Party is always speaking in favour of anyone who is at variance with the federal Government. The Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada alone will speak for Canada in all matters under our jurisdiction. We will seek to do so at all times in harmony and consistent with the interests of the provinces, but the interests of Canada must prevail.


GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to ask the Prime Minister, on this very serious question which he committed in writing, why he and the Government of Canada are now backing down on the commitment that in the deal the rights of

February 17, 1987
Oral Questions
Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen must be paramount. Why is he backing down on that commitment?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are not backing down. Every-


Bill Rompkey: That is what the Minister of Fisheries said this morning.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Minister of Fisheries said nothing-


Bill Rompkey: He would take no position this morning.


An Hon. Member:: Does he ever say anything?


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I invite my hon. friend to reflect upon what the Minister said. It is completely consistent with the position the Government has adopted and I have set out. Surely as a member of the federal Parliament of Canada, as a former Minister of the Crown, he is not suggesting that Parliament abdicate its responsibility in regard to treaty making, or the representation of Canada, and our capacity, our right and obligation to conclude treaties in the national interest. If that is the position of the Liberal Party, let the Liberal Party state it clearly, because this Parliament speaks for all Canadians.


COMMITMENT TO NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. When the Prime Minister was away in Africa, in the special debate on January 28 the Minister made a clear and unambiguous commitment that everybody in Canada, particularly everybody in Newfoundland, could understand' He said:
Our commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is that any price which is too high for Newfoundland and Labrador is too high for Canada.
Why is the Minister now backing away from that, hedging, and qualifying it in a thousand different ways? Does he stand by the commitment as he stated it on January 28, or not?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely stand by those words. If the Hon. Member would reflect upon the quote I just read from the Prime Minister's words, he would find that those two positions are absolutely consistent. The Hon. Member is referring to a phrase taken out of context in something I said yesterday in Moncton, when asked point blank whether we would accept Newfoundland's demand to remove the reference to 2J3KL from the agreement which had been signed with France. I said: "We will not accede to that demand at this point. We will cross that bridge when we come to it", and that is all.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO NEWFOUNDLAND MINISTER OF FISHERIES
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the statement which the Minister made on January
28 and the statement in the Prime Minister's letter are not exactly the same. I would like to ask him about a statement which was made by the Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland who said that he was dumbfounded and confounded that there were not some explorations of other options instead of just trying to bribe France to the negotiating table. Why was the stick not used instead of just the carrot?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, what is so peculiar is that the Hon. Member and other members of the Opposition who say that these statements are well known have not yet come to accept these statements and commitments by the Government of Canada. I repeat, in the words of the Prime Minister, that the outcome will be in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada or there will be no deal. Why does the Opposition refuse to accept that the Government is acting in the best interests of the fishermen, the people, and the provinces of Atlantic Canada?


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF INDONESIAN MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Speaker:: I should like to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in the gallery today of His Excellency Dr. Mochtar Kusumaatmadja, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF GOVERNMENT LEADER IN YUKON
Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Tony Penikett, Government Leader in Yukon.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NORWEGIAN MINISTER OF DEFENCE
Mr. Speaker:: May I also draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. J. J. Holst, Minister of Defence for Norway.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs knows that Canada has allotted $300 million in aid through CIDA to
February 17, 1987

Indonesia over a five-year period. In fact, that represents the fourth largest Canadian aid program in all of Asia. How can the Government continue to ignore the fact that Indonesia has invaded East Timor with 40,000 troops and is conducting "Operation Extinction", which is tantamount to genocide? What kind of representations will the Secretary of State for External Affairs make to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, Dr. Mochtar, who is in Ottawa at the present time?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is embarrassed by this kind of grandstanding.


John Napier Turner: Not at all.


Charles Joseph Clark: He says that he is not, which speaks volumes for his judgment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member is considerably out of date with his accusations with regard to East Timor. I have in fact discussed the matter with Dr. Mochtar during my visit to Indonesia in 1985. At our suggestion, the Canadian Ambassador in Indonesia was invited to visit East Timor to see conditions for himself. He believes the arguments which have been made by various groups are exaggerated. I am sure that I speak for the Government of Indonesia in indicating that they would be prepared-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -to welcome the Hon. Member to come and see for himself. It would be a change in the basis of his representations in the House, if they were based on fact.


REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED NATIONS
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, in view of the incontrovertible evidence which has been put before the Government by the Roman Catholic Church, by the Red Cross, by all kinds of non-governmental organizations, and most recently by an editorial in The Globe and Mail in January of this year-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roland de Corneille: In view of the representations made by non-governmental organizations, about which he pretends to be so concerned and whose advice he pretends to care about, what will the Minister do in terms of making representations before the United Nations Human Rights Commission, which is now in session in Geneva, to bring the dreadful situation that is presently taking place to the attention of that body and to see that this massacre is ended?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member shares the view of the publisher of The Globe and Mail with regard to advertisements respecting South Africa. I repeat the point
Oral Questions
that I have just made in the House. There have been representations made by Canada to the Government of Indonesia. I have made them myself. There have been visits to East Timor by representatives of the Government of Canada. I would invite the Hon. Member, rather than relying upon the editorial opinion of The Globe and Mail, to learn the facts for himself and to avoid making accusations which he cannot support with facts.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it is on the same subject.


John Carnell Crosbie: Rambo Jewett.


Mr. Nystrom:: There is "Codfather" Crosbie.


Pauline Jewett: Yes, the "Codfather". Is the Minister saying that he has received from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, from our Ambassador in Indonesia, and from other sources, sufficient evidence that the military occupation of East Timor has come to an end and that the massive human rights violations have also come to an end?


Charles Joseph Clark: In a word, Mr. Speaker, yes.


EXPORT OF MILITARY GOODS TO INDONESIA
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, that is not the evidence, as the Minister knows, that we have received from Amnesty International which is a body upon which we usually rely. May I ask specifically in my second question about Canadian arms exports to Indonesia which have been going on during the period of the military occupation of East Timor, to the tune of $2 million worth of military goods? Next month, High Tech 87 is encouraging further military exports to Indonesia. Will the Minister seriously look at the continuation of such exports in light of the reports that we have received from very reliable sources?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member takes these matters seriously and would not want to engage in representations that would be misleading. She made reference to the export of military equipment. The military equipment in question is not arms. She made reference to the question of massive violations of human rights and asked if I was satisfied that those were not occurring. I am satisfied that there are not massive violations of human rights.
There was very legitimate room for concern for a period of time with regard to this situation in East Timor. It is our information that that cause for concern has diminished considerably in recent years. I would welcome the Member to acquaint herself with the current facts in East Timor.

February 17, 1987
Oral Questions


Pauline Jewett: I have.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NEW BRUNSWICK MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of Members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Robert Jackson, Minister of the Environment for the Province of New Brunswick.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES LUMBER AGREEMENT- REMANUFACTURING COMPANIES
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade. The Minister will know that the delegation sent to Washington on Friday to renegotiate the lumber agreement on behalf of the secondary lumber manufacturers failed to get any agreement from the United States Government to reopen Appendix B. Considering this now presents a threat to close to 80 to 100 companies across Canada, would the Minister tell us what specific concrete actions the Government will take to assist that industry at a time when it is faced with total relocation or total dissolution?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's information is at variance with my own. I have been advised by my officials that they tabled their arguments with the U.S. officials. I have already told the House, I believe, that I met with Under-Secretary Bruce Smart in Switzerland who agreed that the remanufacturers should not be paying tax on the value added, as is enshrined in the agreement. The U.S. officials undertook to take the list, to consult with higher officials, and get back to us.


REQUEST FOR RENEGOTIATION OF APPENDIX B
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary I would say to the Minister that, based upon the committee hearings of last week, she will know that it will be a matter of a week or two before these industries are forced to take drastic action, either to move across the border or shut down.
Considering that the External Affairs officials have already called industry people to say that the meetings were not successful, will the Minister personally intervene with the Secretary of Commerce and ask right now for a proper
renegotiation of Appendix B before these industries are put out of business?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have just told the House that I have already done that, at least in the person of the Under-Secretary of Commerce in Switzerland. The officials when they met Friday, as I said, tabled the changes to the Appendix B list, about which the industry was carefully consulted. I think the Hon. Member is aware that the original Appendix B list was an industry list-


Lloyd Axworthy: No.


Pat Carney: -that was supplied to the U.S. negotiators. It was an industry list supplied by the remanufacturers which was not complete.


Lloyd Axworthy: And you cut it back. You reduced it.


Pat Carney: We are making every effort to address this matter and I am glad I have the Hon. Member's support for it.


TARIFFS
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. As the Minister is aware, a three-year duty remission on imports of downhill ski-boots and bindings expired last month resulting in a very hefty increase in the import duty on these products. As no ski-boot or binding manufacturing industry exists in Canada, this duty places an unfair and unnecessary burden on the shoulders of Canadian skiers, ski equipment retailers, and the Canadian winter tourism industry. Will the Minister tell the House why this duty remission was allowed to expire and when relief will be given to those negatively affected by this punitive tax measure?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this matter, the original decision to reduce the tariff was in fulfillment of an obligation we had as a result of the quotas we brought in on footwear. Those quotas are expiring and, therefore, the tariff relief will be finished ordinarily.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, in this country we do not have that many manufacturers of ski equipment. We want to encourage that industry to develop, and the Tariff Act is really in place to try to develop this climate. Let me also tell the Hon. Member that we are trying to find a way to get reciprocal relations with foreign countries, not only with regard to this sector but other sectors. Therefore, the Hon. Member's representations affect all trade policy and we will take them into account.
February 17, 1987


SELF-SUFFICIENCY-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. At the Premiers' conference in Edmonton in August, the Premiers stated that self-sufficiency was a natural advantage in energy that this country could not afford to lose. The Prime Minister has always endorsed the principle of self-sufficiency, yet his Minister of Energy has denounced it. What is the Government's policy on this very important question? Is the Government in favour of self-sufficiency or not? What is the Government going to do to bring on these very important energy projects that we need in Canada, such as Hibernia and the upgrading of heavy oil?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is certainly aware that the first federal-provincial conference on energy matters in nearly eight years was held about ten days ago. All the provinces and the federal Government agreed unanimously to sign a press release recognizing the importance of energy matters in Canada and creating task forces to ensure security of supply, which includes self-sufficiency for oil and gas. This must be taken into account. There is therefore a task force and a time-table. For the first time in at least two generations, the provinces and the Canadian Government have agreed unanimously on what should be done in the field of energy.


REQUEST FOR NEW POLICIES
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I think consultation is wonderful, but the Minister of Energy has taken this too far. He has gone beyond consultation. He is abandoning his role as Minister of Energy and leaving it for whomever wants to pick up the pieces. You cannot continue to allow this to drift, Mr. Speaker. When is something going to be done for the energy sector? When are we going to have the federal Government interested enough to provide some policies to generate oil and gas activity in Canada?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous Government, we recognize that, in the field of energy, we are dealing with a natural resource and that constitutional jurisdiction is shared by the provinces and the Canadian Government. The provinces own the natural resources in this country. The Government recognizes that fact. It is in this context that we want to develop joint policies to ensure security of energy supplies for Canadians, and this must not be done on the backs of the provinces because they have a major and basic role to play in the field of energy.
Oral Questions


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who, I am sure, will recall the Liberals' phantom Western Development Fund of a few years ago that was so roundly and rightfully criticized by western Canadians, including Conservatives. Can the Minister confirm that this Government is soon to announce the opening of four western initiative offices from Winnipeg to Vancouver? More important, can he confirm that there will be no new money for these offices, that they will use the same pencils, papers, the same computers, and the same people who already work in the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion in western Canada? Is this a serious initiative, or is it just smoke and mirrors?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the Hon. Member criticize the Liberal Party when his Party supported that Party so loyally over the last number of years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: You better watch it. You've got two years to go, fellow.


Lloyd Axworthy: Are you guys fighting over third place again?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, I am indeed aware of the Liberal phantom fund. It never really got off the ground. In so far as the Hon. Member's reference to the western initiative offices goes, perhaps he could give me his briefing document and I would check it out to see whether there is any validity to it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He is sounding more like a Liberal every day, Mr. Speaker.


POSSIBLE PUBLIC RELATIONS CAMPAIGN
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, before I have a chance to brief the Minister, I wonder if he can also confirm that his Government now has plans for a slick audio-visual presentation to kick off this four-city announcement and if he will confirm that this is just a public relations gimmick when there is no more involved than moving a shingle from one door, renaming the shingle and putting it on another door within the same Department. Can the Minister confirm that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, of course I would be very interested in that. Ian Deans always told us that

February 17, 1987
Oral Questions
we needed to improve our public relations and I suppose he has gotten to the Hon. Member.


TELEVISION
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. During this week the only thing to get more bad press than the Conservative Government is the mini-series that is being run on television, Amerika, a disgusting program purveying propaganda from the American point of view. Could the Prime Minister explain to the House why federal government tax dollars are being spent on such a propaganda apparatus?


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is out of the House today on business. 1 will take the Hon. Member's question under advisement and will so advise the Minister.


EXPENDITURE INQUIRY
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since the Government will continue to spend funds on this particular program, could the Prime Minister give us his assurance that no more federal money will be spent on it throughout the balance of the week?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I want to know what the Hon. Member of the NDP is doing watching such American programs while there are excellent Canadian programs to watch. Stop wasting our time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and has to do with acid rain. At the present time the Government of Canada is pursuing two acid rain policies with the United States of America. One policy agreed upon by the Prime Minister at the 1986 summit, and pursued in January with Vice-President Bush, is for the Government to have the U.S. live up to the envoys' agreement which calls for further research and demonstration projects for the next five years. The other policy pursued in recent weeks by the Minister of the Environment is to demand a cut of two million tonnes of sulphur dioxide pollution on the part of the U.S. Which of the two is the
official policy of the Government of Canada? Which of the two will the Prime Minister pursue at the next summit?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, because the Hon. Member was responsible for a while for the acid rain policy of the Government of Canada, he will well know that this Government, particularly at the initiative of the Prime Minister, has put acid rain at the top of Canada's priorities in discussions with the United States. It is not easy to convince the Americans of our position on that question. We hope to make progress and we would look forward to support from members of the Opposition toward that end.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs for his non-answer. In his position he will realize that he has also to make up his mind and help the Prime Minister decide which of the two policies is Canada's foreign affairs policy with the U.S. on S02 emissions. The question is very simple. Even the Secretary of State can understand it. Are we pursuing a policy of further research and demonstration projects, which is the policy adhered to by the Prime Minister at the 1986 summit, or are we changing tactics as the Minister of the Environment has in the last few weeks to demand S02 emission cuts that are meaningful for Canada at the next summit? This is the policy question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are seeking to have the President of the United States maintain and honour his commitment to Canada with regard to action on the Envoy's Report and action to control acid rain.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Minister of External Trade stated the Government was ready to discuss the automobile trade in general with the Americans. Is he ready to eliminate the 9 per cent tariff on automobile trade between Canada and the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I feel that in the absence of the Minister for External Trade, I can answer the Hon. Member's question. He appears to be suggesting that Auto Pact matters are still being discussed in the Canada-U.S. negotiations. I
February 17, 1987

know it is the New Democratic Party's position that the Auto Pact should be discussed but it is not ours.


REQUEST FOR MAINTENANCE OF TARIFF DIFFERENTIAL
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, does the Government realize that the elimination of the 9 per cent tariff, if it takes place, would make the Auto Pact safeguards a dead letter, something that would be completely inoperative? Will he therefore commit himself to maintaining that 9 per cent tariff differential between ourselves and the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister for International Trade made clear yesterday, the only people in Canada who insist on putting the Auto Pact on the negotiating table between Canada and the United States are members of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party.


FISHERIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. The Minister should know that the people and the Government of the Province of Newfoundland believe that Newfoundland has in effect a veto power to be exercised at the conclusion of negotiations with France on the East Coast fishery, and they believe that because of the Prime Minister's letter to the Minister of Transport and indeed because of statements made by the Minister of Transport himself. My question is quite simple. Will the real Minister of Fisheries stand up to tell us whether or not this veto power in fact exists?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, indeed the real Minister of Fisheries will stand up. In response to the Hon. Member's question, I would like to suggest that what seems to rankle members of his Party and particularly those from Newfoundland and Labrador is that we have, for the first time in history, an opportunity to resolve a long-festering problem to the benefit of the fishermen of Newfoundland, Labrador and indeed all of Atlantic Canada. He further knows, or should know, that France has been fishing in the precious 2J3KL cod stocks area for decades if not for centuries, and that this year French fishing in those waters and indeed in all of Canadian waters is at a level of at least one-quarter what it was during the 1970s while the Government of which he was a part had the power to do something about it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Minister that I am no more and no less rankled than the fishermen of
Oral Questions
Newfoundland about the job he is doing, and I hope the Prime Minister keeps him there for another two years.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister in an attempt to set the record straight. While there are two Ministers of Fisheries there is only one Prime Minister. Will he tell the House, as indeed Premier Peckford understands because of his letter, whether he has given the Province of Newfoundland a veto in effect over the final conclusion of negotiations with France? That is a question only the Prime Minister can answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. friend the answer to that is a flat no. He is signifying his approval. Is that approval on behalf of the Liberal Opposition or will it be withdrawn tomorrow after the Liberals consult some of their friends in Newfoundland and Labrador, or perhaps elsewhere?
Newfoundlanders are Canadians. The people of Canada want this Parliament to speak for all Canadians on matters of national and international import. That is what we have done and that is what we will do. As to whether we will keep the Minister there for two years, I can give my hon. friend that assurance. I can also assure him that I am going to keep him where he is for 22 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ACCESS TO NORTHERN COD STOCK
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. No federal Party would dispute the constitutional position which the Prime Minister has just taken-


John Carnell Crosbie: Then why are you up?


John Edward Broadbent: -about the federal Government having the ultimate right to make this decision. Newfoundland is on the record as agreeing with the Prime Minister that the Government of Newfoundland does not have a veto right under the Constitution. However, we have the Prime Minister's commitment and the very specific commitments of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with respect to part of the deal that the fishermen and the Government of Newfoundland would have to agree to. Since they have only singled out the northern cod as being unacceptable, will the Prime Minister agree that the French should not be given access to new fish in the northern cod area?	,


John Carnell Crosbie: What area is that?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Leader of the NDP were ever to enjoy the awesome responsibility of being part of a Government-

February 17, 1987
Teleglobe Canada


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Merrithew:: Heaven forbid!


Thomas Edward Siddon: -he would know better than to ask questions which relate to constitutional reality. More important, I think it time opposition Members understood the nature of the harmonious discussions I have held with all Atlantic Fisheries Ministers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: They have concurred in this process and agreed to give the process time to work.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REFUGEES
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As he must know, the immigration office in Fort Erie requires refugee claimants coming from the U.S., including Salvadorans and Guatemalans, to sign an agreement that they will return to the U.S. if Canada rejects their refugee claim. This is contrary to our regulations. The U.S. has been deporting these people, some of them to their death, and Canada, by deporting them to the U.S., is really deporting them to El Salvador and Guatemala. Therefore will the Minister assure this House he will not do that?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed been informed that what transpired in Fort Erie was of course a personal initiative by one individual, and I can assure the Hon. Member this will not happen again. As to the matter of deportation to the United States-I think we will very soon be in a position, as I said earlier to the Leader of the Opposition- to announce steps that will enable us to control the problem referred to by the Hon. Member.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-38, an Act respecting the reorganization and divestiture of Teleglobe Canada, be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Ms. McDonald (p. 3435).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House rose at one o'clock there were two minutes remaining in the question and comment period. I believe the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) was just about ready to answer the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon asked me why we are selling Teleglobe and why we want to have it privatized. I have in my hands an article from the Financial Times dated February 16, 1987.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Hon. Members will know that this is Orders of the Day and I hope they will let the Hon. Member respond. If there are any further conversations could you please have them behind the curtain?


Kenneth Albert James: The article has some interesting things to say about the sale, including this:
But the most amusing comment on the sale was from Ian Waddell of the New Democratic Party. "I think they're selling it for ideological reasons," he said.
He's right, of course.
Barbara McDougall, the Minister of State for Privatization, said the sale was in line with the Conservative government's commitment to reduce the size of the public sector and to avoid having Crown corporations competing with private business.
She said the public interest would be better served if "there is a more dynamic economic future for the company and its employees and government can get on with managing things that government is supposed to do."
The article went on to say, referring to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway:
His party once advocated public ownership of the means of production. In more modern times it has said public ownership is no panacea but is one of the means by which "social" ends are pursued. It is put forward as a way of "limiting the power of giant corporations" and assisting social planning by the state.
These are the roots of the ideology that has got us into the mess we're in. It puts a lot of stress on action by the state, as though this meant action by some collection of benevolent and all-wise archangels.
In practice it means control by bureaucrats instead of by the free play of market forces which reflect the buying pattern of all of us.
This ideology had a great vogue in the 1970s, when present patterns for budget deficits were set. Governments, including the federal government of Canada, got into all kinds of businesses, dispensing the hard-won money of the taxpayers with a lavish hand.


Abram Ernest Epp: Point of order.
February 17, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Member rises on a point of order?


Abram Ernest Epp: I had understood the Hon. Member was responding to questions. He did not answer the questions I put to him. Instead he wasted his time reading an editorial into the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret he did not
answer the Hon. Member's question but perhaps the Hon. Member would like to debate the point when he is recognized.
Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to spend a few minutes on the matter of the divestiture of Teleglobe. We must make clear to the House and the country that this is not a planned development of the economy. It is not a long-term decision by the Government that we must do these things in order that in five or ten years our economy will work well for the benefit of the citizens of Canada. Rather, this is a decision by the Government to divest itself of one of the central requirements of any country in relationships with the rest of the world. The Government's decision has been a matter of Conservative ideology. Instead of building a structure for the benefit of Canada, this is a general rejection of the notion that public enterprise should be used to achieve public policy.
The tradition in this country has always been for Crown corporations to be used for the needs of the country. Instead, we have the rejection of a traditional position taken by Canadian Governments, not only New Democratic or Liberal Governments, but Conservative Governments for many years. The history of Crown corporations in Canada shows that a good number of the Crown corporations which served Canada well were put in place by Conservative governments.
The Government holds the belief that Government should not be involved in any enterprise which can be carried out by the private sector, even if in the process it eliminates some of the public interests and policies which have been put in place. Instead of doing something to increase the economic development of the country, the Government is eliminating that possibility.
Let us look for a moment at the apparent reasons for what the Government is doing, besides the rejection of the fact that Crown corporations can be used to develop public policy, and besides the ideological basis for saying that the private sector should have the right to take as much profit as it possibly can from the country instead of allowing it to accrue to the people as a whole. The Government says it is doing this because it thinks the private sector will do a better job, or it needs to be done by the private sector. The Government seems to forget that we now have a company owned by the citizens of Canada which is being taken away from all of the citizens of Canada
Teleglobe Canada
and given to one small group. It is said that that is the market system, that it is now within the market. I fail to see the logic of that.
The Government keeps saying that this is one method of reducing the deficit. Although it may put $100 million or so into the coffers right now, over the long term it will increase the deficit because we will not have this well developed, profitable organization continuing to earn profits for Canada on overseas developments.
You must realize that this company has a certain amount of responsibility in the world as a representative of Canada. The Government should realize what it is doing. It is making into a private corporation an organization which has represented Canada in international communication affairs many times in the past and will apparently continue to do so. That was one of the responsibilities which Teleglobe fulfilled as a Crown corporation. It was Canada's representative on many international organizations, such as the Commonwealth Communications Committee which made decisions on our place in the world of communications. Will that mandate be fulfilled in the future by a private corporation, the aim of which is not necessarily to serve the best interests of Canada, but to serve its own best interests by earning as much profit as possible from its operations?
First, we must question the basis upon which the decision was made. We must question the plausibility of the reasons given for this decision being fulfilled by selling the assets of Canada in this way. This is exactly what has been done in Saskatchewan recently by the Government's friends there. The assets of that province have been reduced. The rating given to Saskatchewan by the financial institutions of the world has dropped from a triple A to a single A because the assets which were considered to be the base of the province were sold. Crown corporations are no longer provincial property and are not recognized as assets by the financial institutions of the world.
There are questions which will be asked when this Bill goes to committee. Those questions will deal with the authority and activities which Teleglobe will fulfil. We will ask who will fulfil these authorities when Teleglobe becomes a private institution.
Teleglobe Canada was created under the Teleglobe Canada Act and was mandated to establish, maintain and operate Canada's international telecommunications service and coordinate these services with those of other countries. Apparently the Government has decided to put the control that was ordinarily vested in the Government into the hands of a private, profit-oriented corporation.
The privatization of Teleglobe means that the Government is also relinquishing its control over our ability to contact other countries via telecommunications. The United States is the only other country in the world that depends upon the private

February 17, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
sector for such communications. Apparently, the Americans have a parallel communication network through their defence system. Since our defence communication system is not worldwide, and there will not be government control over these communications system, we may be unable to communicate with the world. Other countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Japan have government control over their international communications systems.
The Government has designated Teleglobe Canada as the Canadian signatory to the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization. Periodically, each of the signatory's ownership share is adjusted to conform with the percentage of their total use of the system and any other percentage that they elect to have within the agreement. If Teleglobe Canada is privatized and its purpose is not to serve Canadians but to make a profit from its operation, how can it fulfil its responsibility to Canadians within this agreement?
That percentage of ownership share in the telecommunications satellite organization is part of Teleglobe's asset. Therefore, one must assume that this share of satellite operation has been sold to a private corporation and the Government no longer has the ability to make use of those satellites for national purposes.
The corporation is also designated as the Canadian participant in the Commonwealth Telecommunication Organization, the purpose of which is to develop efficient operations of a Commonwealth communication structure. The operation of this global system is also apportioned to those in the Commonwealth who have taken part in the development of a global telecommunication system. The Government, through this Bill, is selling our interest in that telecommunications system. Yet, I wonder if the other nations of the Commonwealth who are involved in this organization were asked if they wanted as a partner a private corporation whose aim is profit rather than service to the Commonwealth or the country which it possibly represents?
Teleglobe Canada primarily functioned on behalf of the Government. We are told that it will continue to have this monopoly for five years and there is a commitment to reduce the price. When we consider the Government's previous policies in these areas, there is no assurance that the Government will not increase its subsidy to Teleglobe in the next five to ten years to keep it afloat. We know that the Government's mandate and responsibility is to assist in the development of a corporation.
We are told that the pension plan of the employees involved in this takeover has been settled. However, I was the member of our Party responsible for dealing with the Bill privatizing Canadian Arsenals. When I contacted employees of that organization I discovered that, although the Government thought it had settled that issue, the employees had quite a different opinion. In fact, that Bill was held up in committee for several days because the employees were dissatisfied with the proposal.
There is a retirement benefit equivalent to one-half the accumulated unused sick leave days up to March 31, 1981, with additional credits of five days per year of service after that date, calculated at the salary level in effect at the time of retirement. This is a commitment to people who are presently working for Teleglobe Canada. While government documents on this divestiture indicate that there has been some discussion on this question, there is no guarantee that this kind of commitment from the Government to the employees is safeguarded. While this may have been discussed, the unions and the employees should beware, because we know from other divestitures of Crown corporations that employees may lose in the long run unless they are very careful.
This divestiture also raises a question about the relationship of Teleglobe with the Department of Transport. The Department of Transport has supplied the use of cable ship icebreakers such as the John Cabot and others to Teleglobe on a reimbursement basis. This amounted to a cost of some $6.8 million a year. Will the Government be required to continue to give this kind of service to Teleglobe when it becomes a private corporation? Will we put at the service of Teleglobe, a private corporation, ice-breakers and cable ships, something which will cost and has cost the Canadian Government in the past as much as $7 million a year? Will the Canadian Government be reimbursed for the provision of these services? Or will they just be services to Teleglobe as have been delivered in the past to some extent?
These are the questions which have to be asked. Not only must we ask why we are selling it, we must ask how we will replace the services which Teleglobe has put in place for Canada, how much it has cost us and how much it will cost us in the future.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the House one of the points made by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), namely, the contrast he made between profit and service. His assumption is that if a utility is purchased by a private enterprise organization it is suddenly no longer a service corporation. I draw to the Hon. Member's attention the number of corporations in the country which have become known not only throughout Canada but throughout the world for the services which they render. I refer to Bell Canada, Consumers' Gas, Interprovincial Pipe Line and TransCanada Pipelines. Do members of the NDP not realize that if one wants to make a profit in private enterprise then one has to provide a service? If there is no service then there is no business and thus no profit. It simply does not follow, as the Hon. Member assumes, that once something is operated for profit, ergo a service is no longer being provided. It is quite the opposite.
We cannot believe more confidently on this side of the House that the transition of this enterprise into private hands will actually increase the possibilities of rendering service to the public. The difference here lies not in the picayune points
February 17, 1987

that have been brought by way of criticism of this deal, for one can believe that members of the NDP would criticize it no matter what were the details of it, but in the ideological-philosophical aspects. They are opposed to anything but state-owned enterprises. They are opposed to private enterprises. That is what they have been saying to the country in this debate while the Government is carrying forward another message to the people of Canada. It is one that we can be confident will be supported by the majority, that is, most business should be in private hands, one Canadian or a group of Canadians serving others.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the alternative to one Canadian serving all Canadians is all Canadians serving all Canadians. That is what we believe. The ownership of Teleglobe by the citizens of Canada operating for the benefit of the citizens of Canada is what we would like to see. That is not happening in this situation. We have no guarantee that it will happen.
If a Crown corporation serves no useful national interest or any commercial purpose and cannot be brought to do so, then I have no concern about getting rid of it. It simply clutters up commercial operations around the country. However, if we have an organization which is owned by all Canadians which is providing services not only to Canada but to others, then why give that organization to one Canadian and allow him to provide those services instead? What the Government is doing is taking this away from all Canadians and giving it to one or two people. That does not make sense. It does not create a structure which will allow Canada to develop.
We know what happens to corporations which use tremendous amounts of money in terms of grants given them by the public to provide a service which they now operate for their own benefit such as the CPR. If one were to look at the structure of that organization one would find that all of the money that went into it in terms of lands and grants has been used to increase the wealth of a very small group of people.
Let us consider Ma Bell in this respect. This is a company which provides service. That service has been developed over time and the profits used to develop a corporation which now has nothing to do with service. What has happened is that the exploitation of the need for communications has been used to develop exploits in other areas. The CPR and Bell Canada are probably the two worst examples of the use of taxpayer funds to develop corporations which then go on to exploit the people in other ways.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are in a hurry for this legislation to move forward. However, I am sure they will understand that I have a question to ask my colleague. It is the following. Can a publicly-owned Teleglobe which provides service to Canadians in the area of telecommunications provide the same type of service that will be provided by a privately-held Teleglobe which will be out to make a profit and whose bottom line will be profit? A publicly-held Teleglobe can be
Teleglobe Canada
directed by the Government to put in place a policy framework with regard to international telecommunications policy. Moving this company into the private sector will cause the company to respond on a profit basis. Will we lose the opportunity to direct our policy internationally as a result of this privatization?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out before, Teleglobe has been used by the Government of Canada as an agency responsible for telecommunications development and the relationships involved in telecommunications development around the world. As far as I can see, in terms of this divestiture structure there is no indication that the responsibilities taken by Teleglobe in the past will be left to the new Teleglobe. The new company's basic reason for being will be profit. We will have to put in place a new structure within our communications field which will do what Teleglobe Canada has been doing in the past with other countries around the world, particularly Commonwealth countries.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time allotted for questions and comments has terminated. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) on debate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the privatization of Teleglobe Canada. First, as Members of the House are aware, Teleglobe is a Crown corporation that has the responsibility for all overseas telecommunications that enter and leave Canada. It is an important Crown corporation. These telecommunications include, of course, overseas telephone calls, telegraph transactions, cable and telex communications. Teleglobe Canada is a joint owner of submarine ocean cables and a telecommunications satellite system. This particular corporation has an effective monopoly in Canada on all overseas telecommunications. Overseas telephone calls account for some 85 per cent of its revenue. The primary source of revenue is from overseas telephone calls.
What puzzles me about the move of the Government to privatize Teleglobe is that this has been the jewel of Crown corporations in terms of making money. It has been a consistent profit maker for the Government. It seems to me to be sound Conservative business practice that if a company makes money, it is kept, or if it is a good investment, it is kept for the people of Canada. Sometimes you sell it, comes the answer from the Conservatives across the way. I think that they like to sell anything that is profit making. If it makes money, I would keep it.
In my Province of Saskatchewan even the Devine Conservatives would not sell some of the more profitable Crown corporations because they make money for the people of Saskatchewan. These companies help make sure that our massive deficit is not even more massive in the Province of Saskatchewan. There are some Conservatives who believe in public ownership. Our present Minister of Finance (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
February 17, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
Wilson), in a different incarnation before he came to this place, was one of the people responsible for securing funding in the United States for the creation of a Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan. The Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan is the largest potash company in the world. It produces and mines more potash in the world than anywhere else except the Soviet Union.
Why is the Conservative Party so insistent on selling a profitable Crown corporation like Teleglobe Canada? As I have stated, it has been a consistent money maker. In 1985, it recorded profits of $53.2 million. Its profit picture for the last 10 years has been very good. In 1985, the revenues of the company were some $678 million with a profit of $53.2 million.

Mr. Speaker, it is a public sector company which has made handsome profits for the people of Canada, it is a sound investment for all Canadians. I wonder why the Government of Canada and Members like the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) want to sell this company which has made a lot of money and a lot of profits for Quebecers and other Canadians, men and women alike. Why did you do that, Mr. Minister? It was a good thing for Canada. It was a source of considerable profits for Canada.


Mr.   La Salle@: And so it will continue.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He says he will continue to sell good companies which make good profits. This is why the Progressive Conservative Party has become so unpopular throughout Canada. This is why the Progressive Conservative Party now ranks third in Canada, according to the polls, with 23 per cent of the votes, with 17 per cent of the votes in Quebec.


Mr.   La Salle@: That is not the reason.


An Hon. Member:: After the elections-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: After the elections the Progressive Conservative Party will be the third Party in Canada and here in the House. And it is strange, Mr. Speaker-


Mr.   La Salle@: We will see.


An Hon. Member:: You are third in Ontario.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We are third in Ontario, true enough, Mr. Speaker. Now, only for now, but with the help of the Prime Minister and some of his Cabinet colleagues we will soon be second in Ontario.


An Hon. Member:: First!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: First in Ontario.


Cyril Keeper: We like Brian, our friend.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: But it is strange, Mr. Speaker. Every time the Progressive Conservative Party gets a huge majority it is finished for 20 years.


Mr.   La Salle@: What a bad forecast!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I remember very well... Before I was born, Canada had the Government of Mr. Bennett, during the 30s-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, but there is such a thing as relevancy in the House. I would hope that the Hon. Member, who has been here for 18 years, would know exactly what I mean.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am a non-paid consultant advising the Conservative Party on how to regain its popularity, Mr. Speaker. It is things like this that make the Conservative Government very unpopular. It is Bills like this that make the people of Canada turn away from the Conservative Party. I got carried away on trying to advise some of my friends. For example, the Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) is a good friend of mine. I would not like to see him lose his seat to a Liberal-for him to lose it to a New Democratic Member is a different thing. The way things are going in Assiniboia he is running third, and he is the most popular Conservative in Saskatchewan. I am sorry, I got carried away, but he is a good friend of mine. I know that he is a good friend of Joe Frazier, the old former heavyweight champion of the world. I think that Joe Frazier could teach him a thing or two, but that is another story.
The sale of Teleglobe Canada is something that I do not think is in the interest of the people of Canada. A Conservative Government has sold this company to a small Montreal based data processing and data communications company. The Government claims to have sold Teleglobe for $608.3 million. However, in analysing the sale more carefully, it is found that the company that is buying Teleglobe is paying at most only $488.3 million for the company. If it is paying $488.3 million for the company that made a profit last year of some $53 million, it is getting a pretty good deal. In essence, we are seeing the giveaway by the Government of a very profitable part of what Canadians already own. I cannot support that type of giveaway.
Privatization seems to be a trend in the Government. This is not the first company that has been privatized, and it probably will not be the last company that is privatized.


Mr. Jepson:: You betcha.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My very conservative Conservative friend from London says "you betcha". That is what I am afraid of. The Conservative Party in the last few years has changed radically. It used to be a progressive Party. It used to be the Party of Sir John A. Macdonald and of John Diefenbaker. It was the Party that brought in the CBC and the Canadian Wheat Board, the Party that at one time had a national Canadian dream.
February 17, 1987


Mr. McCurdy:: Those are mutations.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mutations, perhaps. But every once in a while it did a progressive thing. For example, the Wheat Board was very popular in western Canada, and it has been very good for Canada. Now the Conservative Party has a Prime Minister that believes in branch plant Canada, that is, importing Reaganism and American republicanism. Pretty soon he will probably privatize the Canadian Wheat Board in the free trade negotiations.


An Hon. Member:: Go for it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: "Go for it" says my friend from Calgary, privatize the Canadian Wheat Board. There we have one member of the Conservative Party who wishes to privatize the Canadian Wheat Board. Do we have another bidder? Is there another one out there who will do the same thing? The Hon. Member from Ontario says it is losing money, it is a bad time for the Wheat Board. We will privatize the Wheat Board. There is an Ontarian and a Calgary oil baron who wish to privatize the Canadian Wheat Board.


An Hon. Member:: Sell it while it is making money.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: "Sell it while it is making money", he says. So we have the Whip of the Conservative Party from Ontario who wants to privatize the Canadian Wheat Board and sell it. Maybe it is because he is from Ontario that he does not understand what the Canadian Wheat Board means. I think that the Member for Assiniboia should take him out behind the barn and give him a lesson or two about the Canadian Wheat Board, and how the farmers of Canada fought for the Canadian Wheat Board. They fought against the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and those old Liberal corporations at the top that screwed the farmer year in and year out. Now we have these Conservatives from Ontario and from Calgary who want to sell the Wheat Board. They are in bed with the Richardson family in the private grain exchange. That is what is happening to the Conservative Party, a Party that used to be a little bit conservative.


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: What is your position?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The position of the NDP is well known in regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. We believe in a strong Canadian Wheat Board. We believe that the Wheat Board should be expanded to include, not just the grains that it handles now, but all the Canadian grains. That is the position of the NDP. It was the position of the CCF, the farmers' union, the wheat pools, and as well the Member for Assiniboia. If the farmers of western Canada were consulted, they would agree with me and not with the Member from Calgary or the Whip of the Conservative Party from Ontario. Those are the fears that we have.
As I said before, it is because of these types of policies that the Conservative Party is defeated whenever they take office. I was making reference to the fact that when R. B. Bennett was
Teleglobe Canada
Prime Minister, it took him five or six years before he destroyed the Conservative Party for 20 years in this country. In 1957-58, John Diefenbaker came along and he was Prime Minister for five years. Dalton Camp and the Bay Street boys got into the Conservative Party, and again it was destroyed for 20 years. Now we have a new Prime Minister. This time he might not destroy the Party for 20 years; perhaps he will relegate it to third place forever. That would be a useful contribution from the boy from Baie Comeau.
Those are the reasons that I oppose the Bill before us today. It is not Canadian. It is not in sync with what Canadians stand for. It is not in sync with what the Conservative Party has stood for historically. It is not what Peter Lougheed stood for in Alberta.


Mrs. Sparrow:: Privatization, you bet.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He did not stand for privatization in Alberta, with the creation of Pacific Western Airways with some of the moneys from the Heritage Fund. I remember a Conservative Member of Parliament standing in the House and calling Peter Lougheed "Peter the Red".


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: No, no. "Peter the Blue".


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It was "Peter the Red". I also remember Bill Davis in Ontario and the takeover of Suncor.


Mr. Fraleigh:: The biggest disaster in Ontario.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Now I hear an Ontario Tory saying that Bill Davis was the biggest disaster in Ontario, and he is being cheered by the Member from London. I agree with that.
They were Conservative Premiers who believed in public ownership and did some things in the field of public ownership such as those the Conservative Party originally did with the CBC, Radio Canada, and the Canadian Wheat Board. What we are seeing today is a fundamental change in the Conservative Party of Canada.
When the next election comes, I am sure Canadians will say no to the privatization of Teleglobe, to free trade, to deregulation, and to privatization, just as they are saying no now to the incompetence and scandals which plague the Government, the Prime Minister's Office and many cabinet offices.
I could mention many other things about Teleglobe, but many of my colleagues, such as the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), are anxious to speak. However, I will conclude with one final appeal to the backbenchers of the Conservative Party to think back to their roots, to their heritage, and to the reason their Party was formed in the first place.
What I heard today from a Conservative Member from Calgary and from the Whip of the Conservative Party, who is extremely influential in the Prime Minister's Office, is that they would like to privatize the Canadian Wheat Board. That
3534

February 17, 1987
Adjournment Debate
really concerns me. I hope farmers across western Canada will take note of what the very powerful Whip of the Conservative Party wants to do-privatize the Canadian Wheat Board.
I hope we can join forces with the Hon. Member for Assiniboia and other progressive elements of the Conservative Party to put a stop to the notion of privatizing the Canadian Wheat Board and putting marketing boards on the free trade negotiating table. I hope we can stand up for western Canada and for a strong country from coast to coast.
[ Translation]


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments, because the Hon. Member, whom I have known for years, just asked me: Why privatize? So I shall, if I may, remind the Hon. Member that of course there can be no agreement between the philosophy of the Members of the New Democratic Party and our own. That being understood, we were not counting on the support of the Members opposite for this transaction. And I also think all Canadians should be aware of the importance of this decision which is one more instance of this Government's meeting a fundamental commitment that was made by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and supported by his colleagues during the last election campaign. I am referring to the commitment that we would give the private sector the place it deserved. We have now proved, and it is important that people realize this, that we trust Canadians and Canadian know-how, and that we also encourage private sector initiative and are doing so through various companies. Today I am delighted, and Montreal is too, to see there will be a share purchase plan for employees. I am also delighted with the potential of this company which will enhance Canada's reputation and reflect the sound and solid policies of a Government that has respect for the private sector and believes the private sector can take an active part in this country's economic renewal. Only two years ago, our economy was an embarrassment, but today, we can be proud as Canadians of our extraordinary economic performance, reflected in the creation of thousands of jobs, lower unemployment rates, and an economic climate that is far more accessible and favourable than it was two years ago. So that of course is the result of this Government's policies, and it has been this Government's response to the private sector which had asked for this chance to develop and expand.
Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. friends that this legislation is a perfect response to those needs and to the hopes of Canadians who wanted this opportunity to help their country through personal initiative. We have confidence in the ability of Canadian men and women. We have confidence in the private sector, and of course we are not counting on the NDP's support, but we don't need it, because we know that the Prime Minister's vision is fair and equitable and reflects the will of the people of Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister referred to the Prime Minister's vision. He said that the Prime Minister's vision was the same as the vision of the Canadian people. If
that is the case, why is the Conservative Party down to 23 per cent in the polls? There is a big difference between the vision of the Canadian people and the Prime Minister's vision. The Prime Minister has been talking about free trade and privatization and deregulation. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people have massively rejected the projects, programs and policies of the Conservative party.
Another thing, Mr. Speaker. I said that Teleglobe grossed $53 million last year. And by the way, we are not the only country in the world with a government-owned telecommunications corporation. Many countries have public corporations like Teleglobe. I could mention Australia, New Zealand, France, West Germany, Italy and Sweden. All these countries have corporations controlled by the national government. Great Britain, under Mrs. Thatcher's Conservative Government, only privatized part of British Telecom. Even under Margaret Thatcher, the Government retained 50 per cent of the shares in British Telecom. Nearly 50 per cent of those shares were kept by Mrs. Thatcher's Conservative Government in Great Britain. Even Margaret Thatcher is less Conservative than the boy from Baie Comeau, Mr. Speaker. And that is why the Conservative Party has been massively rejected by the Canadian people. That is why the Conservative Party is now third in this country and why it will be third after the next federal election.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)- Employment-Winnipeg Canada Packers plant layoffs- retraining of workers, (b) Request that Deputy Prime Minister help situation in Winnipeg; the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson)-Fisheries-Marketing of freshwater fish-Senate Committee report; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-North Atlantic Treaty Organization- Liberal Party Convention resolutions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-38, an Act respecting the reorganization and divestiture of Teleglobe Canada, be now read the
February 17, 1987
[Stage Direction]
second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Ms. McDonald (p. 3435).
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-38, an Act respecting the reorganization and divestiture of Teleglobe Canada.
Many Canadians are distressed at the decision of the Government of Canada to begin a process of wholesale privatization of Crown corporations for no other reason than the fact that the current governing Party is really a slave to a doctrinaire philosophy, that always and in every circumstance where it is possible the private sector should have ownership of the assets and resources of our country.
1 belong to a political Party that believes fundamentally in the free enterprise system which will generate the most wealth for this nation that will ultimately serve all of its citizens. But we taper that belief in free enterprise with a concern that it is a legitimate role for Government to intervene to ensure that the distribution of wealth generated by a free enterprise system is fair and equitable. We taper that belief in free enterprise with the certain conviction that when it comes to providing goods and services to Canadians in equal measure, no matter where they live in this country, from time to time it is appropriate for Government to intervene to ensure that services are provided.
There are some very notable examples of this, such as the decision to establish what is now Air Canada. This was an example of a Government intervening to ensure that airline service would be available in equal measure, at a reasonable level, everywhere in Canada. That was a decision at a point in time when the private sector was not prepared to take it and, I would submit, is not prepared to take it today. There was a decision by a very famous Conservative Prime Minister, John A. Macdonald, to build a railroad from sea to shining sea because that act of Government intervention to ensure the railroad was built was part of the policy of the Government of the day to use the railroad, to use transportation, as a means of national unity. There are many examples, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was established, not because the private sector could not give us a broadcasting service in Canada, but because the Parliament of Canada believed instead that there was a requirement on the part of the Government to ensure that Canadians, no matter where they lived, would at least have a minimal level of service in both radio and television. So too was it part of the service, part of the needs of the nation, that Teleglobe Canada was put together to provide this country with a trans-Atlantic telephone service and to provide us as well with telex services.
What we have in this Bill is not an argument, there is not one shred of evidence that placing Teleglobe in private hands is going to give the people of Canada-because that is what counts in the final analysis-a better service or a cheaper service than is currently the case. What we have instead wrapped up in this Bill is an expression of a particular political
Teleglobe Canada
Party's ideology that in all cases, at all times, the private sector must provide goods and services in this nation.
1, for one, find it more than passing strange that the Government of Canada is seizing upon the assets of the people of Canada, profitable assets that belong to every man, woman, and child in this country that are returning an investment on behalf of the people to the Treasury of this country, and is privatizing those assets. Teleglobe Canada, a company until we pass this Bill, or until the Government majority passes this Bill, paid to its shareholders, and the shareholders are 25 million Canadians, $108 million last year and a similar amount the year before. In two years that company paid Canadians, the shareholders, nearly $200 million, yet the Government is going to sell off that Crown corporation to a private sector company, I am sure a reputable company and an able company, I am sure a well meaning company-I do not dispute that-for $500 million.
Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, that within five years at the current rate of profits this company will have a 100 per cent return on its investment? In five years, the company will have paid lock, stock and barrel for this Crown corporation and paid it off and, in five years, it will be seeing a profit in today's dollars in the range of $100 million a year, an amount of money currently being paid into the Treasury, to the shareholders, the people of Canada. Why is this being done? Because the Party is locked into a stringent doctrinaire philosophy that says, "But the Crown cannot own assets, it cannot own resources". It is being done because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is desperately trying to find ways to meet his budget projections tomorrow of how much his deficit will be.
If in the short term we have to give away this Crown corporation, which pays us a substantial amount of money, for $500 million, if in the short term that half a billion dollars, coupled with the sale of Fisheries Products International Newfoundland, another $100 million giveaway, gives us the dollars to be able to say tomorrow to the people of Canada that the Minister has kept his deficit projection in line because he sold off half the shop to do it, well, then, Mr. Speaker, the Government says that is good enough.
The tragic reality is that in the long term this sale of Teleglobe Canada will be paid for by our children and our children's children. The simple fact of the matter is that this sale of Teleglobe Canada in the long term will increase the deficit. For the moment, this facility, Teleglobe Canada, is paying into the federal Treasury, the federal coffers. It was paid and built by the taxpayers of Canada and it is finally showing a return, a very substantial one.
Over the next 10 years it would be worth $1 billion in current moneys to Canadians, over the next 20 years in current dollars it would be worth $2 billion, and over the next 30 years it would be worth at least $3 billion in current dollars. If the activity of the company continues to expand as satellite telecommunications mature, one could surmise that the return to the people of Canada would be that much dramatically

February 17, 1987
Tele globe Canada
higher. What have we done? We have sold the company at an incredible price. The average Canadian in buying a home expects to pay for it over 15, 20 or 25 years. The average Canadian buying a car expects to pay for that over 3, 4, or 5 years. But the Government of Canada has taken a facility worth $100 million in profit a year and sold it to a company that can pay it off within five years based on the return that has been given to the company on the sale.
That kind of short-term fixing of the books, that kind of short-term effort to save face on the part of the Minister of Finance by selling off the assets of Canadians has got to come to a stop, Mr. Speaker. What I find frightening is that in the atmosphere in which we currently live where the front pages every day are dominated by new, interesting and exciting revelations, in that atmosphere when most people are preoccupied with what the great late Don Jamieson would call the froth of political life versus the substance of parliamentary procedure, we find that the public is not aware of it all. Canadians are consumed by the froth, the sensational front page headlines, and by and large they are not aware that many of the treasured assets of the country are on the chopping block being sold off. It is much too late to say, put a halt to it, stop, what are we doing, let us have a public debate when those assets have disappeared.
Why is it that the sale of Teleglobe Canada proceeded in advance of the presentation to the House by the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) of a national telecommunications policy for Canada? That kind of initiative is one about which we have spoken for the last four or five years. Before we start taking bits and pieces of the telecommunications machine and privatizing them or transferring their ownership, we ought at least to know the national telecommunications policy for Canada. Members on this side of the House and, I believe, Members on the other side of the House have been waiting to hear from the Minister. What indeed is Canada's policy? We have had nothing but a rushed attempt in the name of a quick Budget fix to sell Teleglobe Canada.
There was a rushed attempt to sell Fisheries Products International for exactly the same reasons. That is a sale that will get the Government of Canada a quick fix. Like a junkie on Saturday morning, the Government is looking for another quick $100 million to get the deficit figures in line. The sale of FPI was made with absolutely no provisions guaranteeing jobs for the people associated with the inshore fishery of Atlantic Canada, and particularly Newfoundland. There was not a single provision to ensure the livelihood of fish plants that only two years ago were bailed out at a cost of nearly $300 million. That bail-out was approved by all three Parties in Parliament.
I was the Parliamentary Secretary who put that Bill through the House. All three Parties felt that it was a non-partisan issue, that the inshore fishery was essential to the life-blood of Atlantic Canada and that it must be bailed out, restructured and modernized. We felt that we must guarantee jobs and the way of life in Atlantic Canada. We all got together and
approved that Bill. Yet two years later, a new Government with a new philosophy, bound and chained like a slave to a doctrinaire philosophy no longer relevant in 1987, suddenly picked it up, lock, stock and barrel and, for $100 million, passed it back to the private sector with no guarantees to prevent a recurrence of the kind of problems with which we had to deal at a cost of $300 million a scant two or three years ago. That is what is frightening about the Government.
We are hearing about the sale of Air Canada. We ask why. The Government intelligently tells us: "Because". We ask: "Because why?". "Because the private sector should do it, of course". We are hearing about the sale of CN and we ask: "Why?". The Government says: "Because. Because the private sector should do it".
We do not have a national transportation policy any longer. We used to function on the notion that we would regulate services on the basis of public convenience and necessity. Now we have a new philosophy of fit, willing and able. If you have some dollars, Mr. Speaker, and the initiative, and you want to provide or eliminate a service, go right ahead. That is the philosophy of the Conservative Party.
The Government has said that the purpose of privatization is to put Teleglobe into the hands of the private sector. The Government has said that the company might benefit from private sector management. In announcing the Bill, the private sector is so confident of its ability to benefit this company that it has demanded that it remain in a monopoly position. It is the private sector if necessary but not necessarily the private sector. The scenario is that this company will function like a Crown corporation with a monopoly, with guarantees and with guaranteed profits, but the profits will go into the hands of the private shareholders, not the people of Canada who built the company. The profits will go into the hands of private individuals who will operate with public guarantees and with a government-sanctioned monopoly.
The Government has said that the purpose of privatization is to increase competition. For the next five years, during a time of growth and development in this particular field, again this company will have a government-guaranteed monopoly. One cannot be a half-way private-sector player. One cannot on the one hand talk about the virtues of the private sector, talk about freeing the entrepreneurial spirit, make the appeal to private initiative and competition, while on the other hand wrapping all that around a set of government regulations and monopolies and expect the people of Canada to swallow that line. I know the Speaker knows that. I know that if he were not constrained by the requirements of the Chair, the Speaker would be on his feet with his fists balled up demanding that this terrible piece of legislation be chucked through the door.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope that the Hon. Member would not get me into this argument. Perhaps he could hold on to it and use his own rhetoric for his own debate.
February 17, 1987


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, of course I should not comment on what I know-or what I think the Speaker would be doing, but I know that for you it is from time to time a frustrating experience to be sitting there.
The Government has said that the purpose of privatization is to minimize regulatory burden. How is the Government minimizing regulatory burden? For the first time, Teleglobe will be accountable to the CRTC. A new layer of regulations will be added. That goes along with the monopoly that has been given to the so-called private players. The people of Canada will not swallow that excuse for the Government's initiative.
The simple reality is that for the taxpayers of Canada, Teleglobe has become one of the few cash cows in the government arsenals, one of the few companies to which we could look to give us a return on our investment. It is a company that, on the one hand, manages a service that is essential for Canada, a service that ought to be developed, owned and controlled on behalf of all the people of Canada, while on the other hand it gives us a return on our investment. It is beyond my imagination to understand why the Government needs to sell off this company now.
The Government has suggested that Teleglobe's tariffs are too high and that this is another reason for privatization. In August, 1986, only a scant few months ago, in a brief presented to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) by the Teleglobe Technical Services Association, Local 1653, and the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Union, quite the opposite was revealed. The brief stated that the company's tariffs were a matter of bilateral international agreements and that the company must often acquiesce to traffic structures of the overseas partners, the foreign administrators. It went on to indicate that even though Teleglobe is capable of operating profitably with lower rates in the case of telephone traffic, Telecom Canada receives an average of 50 cents on the dollar per conversation per minute, and that these and other problems can easily be resolved by making Teleglobe subject to CRTC regulations.
Is it necessary to privatize the company in order to make it subject to CRTC regulations? Could the company, as a Crown corporation, not have been subject to the CRTC? Of course it could have been and there could have been a reduction in the rate structure.
Jean-Claude Delorme, the President of Teleglobe Canada, appeared before the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. The corporation was considering a plan which consisted of a number of phases. It was considering a rate reduction in the order of 10 per cent in 1986. This Crown corporation was planning a rate reduction in any case. It was not necessary to privatize a company which has paid $100 million in profit to the people of Canada.
Teleglobe Canada
The Government has insisted on using its blind majority, its at times mindless majority, its always doctrinaire majority, its philosophy enslaved majority, to inflict upon minority Members of this House and the majority of Canadians across this land a decision we find unacceptable. We warn the Government that a continuation of that kind of policy will meet with ever-increasing resistance in this place and in this land.


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


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, what is very obvious in this divestiture is that the Government, which professes to prefer private enterprise, has done so theoretically and then imposed upon the overseas telecommunications industry a monopoly. That goes against the philosophy which is supposed to be the basis for the initial action. Would the Hon. Member comment on that contradiction in government policy?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is absolutely right. There is a clear contradiction in terms here. The Government has not really transferred Teleglobe to the private sector. In sustaining the monopoly and placing the company under CRTC regulation, it has simply transferred the company's profits from the Government of Canada to the shareholders of a private company. This company will operate for at least five years, if not longer, in exactly the same manner as a Crown corporation with a guaranteed monopoly, rate structures set by the Government, and the profits will simply be funnelled out of the Treasury and into the pockets of private individuals. That is all that has happened here. That is another philosophy which the Government pursues, one we will not talk about in this particular debate.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is an erudite and experienced Member of the House. I am sure that on the basis of his observation of the Conservative Party he can explain something that puzzles me a great deal. I cannot really believe that this is simply the gratuitous application of empty-headed ideology. Perhaps he can enlighten me by explaining the justification that Conservatives use for privatization, the economic principles involved, and where the privatization of Teleglobe fits in among those economic principles.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr" Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for ascribing to me an ability I think no rational Member of this House has, that is, an ability to explain the policy decisions of the Party opposite. I claim to be a gentleman who is able to find words and means on occasion to put my feelings in everyday language. However, the problem here is not in finding the language to describe Members opposite or what motivates the Government in taking this decision. The problem is that it is simply impossible for any rational person to understand why this particular sale was made, whether it be from the point of view of sound financial planning and management or even from the point of view of the Government's own philosophy.

February 17, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
All I can say is that in the final analysis nothing has happened in this sale or will happen through this legislation other than the fact that an entity generating substantial profits for the Government will now transfer those profits to the hands of private individuals. Whether we talk about service to Canadians, cost to Canadians, or development of Teleglobe for Canadians, we see absolutely nothing in this Bill that would impact any differently on the company now than would have been the case had it stayed in public hands.
This is the only rational explanation I can give you. A junkie on Saturday morning will go to deep and desperate ends to get a fix. We have a Minister of Finance who is in deep and desperate trouble trying to meet his deficit projections. Teleglobe Canada and FPI and other Crown corporations then become the victim of a scam by a cornerstore burglar looking for the dollars to support his fix. In this case the fix is fixing the deficit so it is believable. The cost, of course, is some very valuable assets belonging to the people of Canada which are projected to contribute long into the future to the pocket-books of ordinary men, women and children of this country. I find the whole process not only shocking but regrettable.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the problem the Hon. Member has in explaining what is happening. However, I ask him to explain one more thing, if he will. Even though the Conservatives got about 50 per cent of the vote, how can they believe they have a mandate to do what they are doing given the situation in which they find themselves across the country these days? They had originally about 50 per cent of the vote, and a lot of that I suppose was a temporary protest vote.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is said that when a Party finds itself down in popular esteem one of the ways of finding out which way you should go by way of policy is to consult the next largest Party. The Government consulted the undecided, flipped a coin and decided to sell Teleglobe. I really wish I could provide a rational answer to a rational question, but the subject matter is so irrational it escapes even the capacity of a simple Newfoundlander to put forward-


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: That is not hard.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Hon. Member from Alberta says that it is not hard. I know that people from Newfoundland are rather timid and inarticulate and have great difficulty in expressing emotions. However, as simple, quiet, shy and withdrawn as we are, we nevertheless stand up in this place and state our views. We find the backbone to get to our feet, unlike some Members in some Parties who, quietly, would rather see the Government steal away like a thief in the night with Teleglobe, an asset belonging to the people of Canada. At least we register a note of protest. For that I make no apology.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.
[ Translation]


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Why?


Cyril Keeper: My hon. friend here asks why. It is because so far, the Government has put this debate within an ideological context. It says their reasons for selling Teleglobe Canada were that the private sector was more efficient than the public sector. It says that for the New Democratic Party it is only natural to demand that a corporation remain in the public sector. The Government has put all this into an ideological context.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the matter a little more objectively. I would like to examine the sale of this company from a number of different angles. For instance, I would like to look at public policy reasons for maintaining Teleglobe Canada as a Crown corporation and for selling it to the private sector. That is one of the aspects.
Another aspect we should examine is the nature of this business. It happens to be a monopoly. How does one regulate a monopoly? How can one manage a monopoly in such a way that it serves the public interest? What is the best way to do it?
Another aspect of this matter is concerned with the profits and revenue of this company. Does the company have any financial problems? Who will benefit from its income?
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to examine the sale of this company and the various aspects of that sale, because I think we should realize there are some questions. If the Government is so sure the company should be sold, it may be right. But can we ask a few questions, find out why the Government sold the company? If indeed we can ask questions, I suggest the Government must reconsider its approach. The Government will have to say: Yes, the company is now in the public sector and running smoothly. Why change anything if things are going well? Why fix something that does not need fixing?
Mr. Speaker, my first question was: Are there public political reasons why Teleglobe Canada should remain in the public sector rather than be sold to private interests? Are there such reasons, or are the Progressive Conservatives right when they say there is no need for this company to be in the public sector and that a private company can just as well serve the interests of Canadians?
What I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that Teleglobe Canada is our lever to implement the communications policy. It attests to our presence on the international scene. Mr. Speaker, there is a big world out there and we want to communicate with everybody. With Teleglobe Canada we can help Canadians keep in touch with the rest of the world. Such is the situation at this time.
February 17, 1987

But if we were to do what the Government is doing and ask that the company be sold, then it will become a private company and will want to make a profit. The company will have to be attuned to the requirements of the market, and there may be parts of the world with which Canadians may not find it profitable to communicate. So there will be pressure to do away with one aspect of our international communications.
As I see it, Mr. Speaker, if Canada is to remain open to the world and if Canadians are to be able to communicate with everybody, then it would be better if the company were to remain in the public sector because we can use it as an instrument to achieve public objectives and stay in touch with the rest of the world, not only with those countries where reciprocal communications may spell profit.
That, Mr. Speaker, is one public political reason why this company ought to remain in the public sector.
Another aspect to this question of public policy, Mr. Speaker, is that Teleglobe Canada speaks for Canadians on international organizations. Should Teleglobe Canada ever become a private company subject to the conditions of the private market, then it will speak for itself and defend the interests of its owner.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if it is to belong to international organizations then I think there is a possibility of conflict of interests-the interests of the Government of Canada and of the people of Canada, and the interests of a private company working to make a profit and represent the interests of its owner.
In that case, Mr. Speaker, I think we will have to express serious reservations about the sale of Teleglobe Canada. Indeed, the way things are now, the company operates as an instrument which can represent all Canadians on international organizations, but once it has been sold we will have to find some other way to be represented on those organizations. We will also have to find a way to gather information on the international telecommunications industry to be able to represent our own national interest, our interest in international organizations.
I will give you an example. For years, the oil industry in this country belonged to the private sector and was in fact dominated by private companies. These companies gave the federal regulator information on Canada's oil reserves. For years they said we had plenty of oil and we could sell the oil we had. We were dependent for that information on those companies. After a while, in a matter of years, the companies changed their minds. They said: Watch out, the oil is running out. And we had the oil crisis. Mr. Speaker, in that situation we depended on the private sector for information that was essential to the interests of this country.
I think the same situation could apply in the telecommunications industry. When we depend on a private company for our knowledge of the industry, we may not get the information we need to understand the industry and safeguard our interests.
Teleglobe Canada
Mr. Speaker, the second aspect of this question I want to look at is the nature of the telecommunications industry. This corporation is a monopoly and it dominates the industry, of course, and my question is as follows: Is it more efficient to regulate a monopoly through ownership or through regulation? I think there are two ways of managing a monopolistic industry. One way is to have a regulatory agent who can look at the company and say: O.K., do this or do that, take this or that direction. That is one way. The other way is to buy the company or go along with the company in the public sector, and simply be able to tell its managers: This is Canadian policy, and we want you to respect that policy and to follow it, because you are the owners of this company and you can do that under our economic system.
Mr. Speaker, today we can control this industry because we own it. However, the Government is going to change the situation and put us into another where we will have to depend on a regulatory system. Mr. Speaker, the trouble with a regulatory system is that sometimes the regulators get too cozy with the industry they are supposed to regulate. It is like policemen on the beat. They're supposed to be there to control crime, for instance, the sale of drugs. Policemen patrol the streets to get rid of this kind of activity. Sometimes, however, they may accept bribes and forget their responsibility to the public. They become friends with the people selling the drugs. They are no longer regulating the situation, they are part of it. I think this could happen in industry. Instead of regulating the industry, the regulatory agent starts representing the interests of that industry.
Mr. Speaker, we now have a good system for managing the telecommunications industry in our country, which is a monopolistic industry, and why should we change it? If the system works, why change the system?
The third point I want to look at is the matter of profits and income generated by Teleglobe Canada. Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that Teleglobe is a profitable operation that is earning income every year. So why sell the corporation and transfer it from the public to the private sector when it is making a profit? The Government has said it will use the profits of this sale to reduce the deficit. But, Mr. Speaker, if we continue to own Teleglobe Canada we can expect to make a profit every year. The company can contribute to put money in the public treasury for years to come. It is difficult to understand why the Government would want to sell a successful company. I have the impression that this Government is a little bit ashamed that a public sector company should be so profitable. The philosophy of this Government is that the private market is the most efficient vehicle to do just about everything, and it has very little respect for Crown corporations. They often say that a Crown corporation simply cannot operate the way a private company does.
Mr. Speaker, I am forced to conclude that a successful Crown corporation is an embarrassment to this Government. It would rather not have Canadians look at this example as

February 17, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
evidence that indeed it is possible to have public sector companies which are doing well. It is a dangerous notion because the Conservative Party has made an about turn. Traditionally the Conservative Party had always been oriented towards a mixed economy. Many of our public sector companies were set up by the Conservative Party, CPR for instance, and I think that the CBC was also created by a Conservative Government. In the past, Conservative Governments have used public instruments, public companies that is, to implement public policies. But now, today, this Government wants to abandon the Conservative Party tradition. It wants to follow a new strategy, it wants to imitate, it wants to be like the Republican Party of the United States.
The Prime Minister seems to have been unduly impressed by the President of the United States. He seems to look up to Mr. Reagan as a brother, as a big brother.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: A father.


Cyril Keeper: As a father. My friend is saying that our Prime Minister sees the President of the United States as a father, somebody who points to the right direction. But the new direction of the Conservative Party is the American direction. It is a republican direction, a direction which indicates that only the private market can be efficient, only the private market can guarantee economic development. They are abandoning the true tradition of the Conservative Party in this country. Sir John A. Macdonald would not endorse such a policy. John Diefenbaker would not endorse such a policy. A pity, because there is room in this country for a genuine Conservative Party, for an authentic conservative policy. But I think the present Government has given up on that approach.
In short, Mr. Speaker, all I am saying is that the sale of Teleglobe Canada is debatable, it is not a good decision. There are at least three reasons why this is not a good decision. First of all, we have a public interest in telecommunications which we want to maintain. There are public policy reasons for maintaining Teleglobe as a public corporation. The second reason is simply that the best way to manage a monopolistic industry is to own it instead of using a regulatory mechanism. Finally, why sell a Crown corporation that is a success? Why not maintain our commitment to a mixed economy in this country? Why adopt the American approach, the Reaganomics approach? Why abandon this country's tradition, and why has the Progressive Conservative Party abandoned its own traditions?


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with some comments and a question for my hon. friend. First, my comments.
In 1985, Teleglobe paid $108 million in dividends to the Canadian Government and another $80 million in 1986. Under the terms of sale, the Canadian Government will receive another $102 million. In addition, at the end of this year it will receive another $18 million, totalling $308 million over these three years.
Mr. Speaker, the new owner, Memotec, will have a monopoly during the next five years. This means that a company that has been paying $308 million worth of dividends during three years ... they pay $488 million, they get a five-year monopoly which means ample time to get back their investment plus dividends, and, Mr. Speaker, I wonder, and that is what I would like to ask my hon. friend, how-I can't understand it. I cannot understand this from a Conservative Government that in 1984 said it was going to manage this country like the responsible head of a family, like a businessman. A businessman does not sell a profitable enterprise. And if he does decide to sell, he makes sure the price is right. In this case, if we average $488 million over a five-year period as a monopoly, we are talking about a fire sale.
I would like to ask my hon. friend whether he would care to comment, and whether he has found the real reason why the Conservative Government sold a corporation that is so profitable and could have helped reduce the deficit and the national debt on an annual basis.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to explain why the Government is selling Teleglobe Canada. Today, the corporation is making a profit for Canadians. Why does the Government want to give up a corporation that is functioning and making a profit? Is he giving a present to someone in the private sector? Why sell this corporation at such a low price? Why, after selling the corporation at a low price, were they given the additional advantage of a five-year monopoly?
It is really hard to understand why the Government wants to sell Teleglobe Canada today.
Today, all Canadians, all 25 million of them, benefit from the services of Teleglobe, and not just the services but also the income generated by this corporation. This is a time when Canadians need this income because they don't want rate increases. But why did the Government decide to sell this company and give it to private interests, to a small group of people? Why make a decision which will benefit only a small group of people, at a time when everybody benefits from it? It is difficult to understand, Mr. Speaker. I would not dare suggest that the Governement simply wants this deal to benefit its friends. I realize that people have the impression that this is the way the Government operates, that it puts the interests of its friends ahead of those of the Canadien public.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I am not sure that my colleague has mentioned Canada's international responsibilities in connection with international communications issues, INTELSAT, and the conflict of interest for the new Teleglobe when there is an American international service which ignores the crosssubsidization system. Comments, please?


Cyril Keeper: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, as a private company Teleglobe Canada will indeed have conflicting interests-its own interests as a company which is profit-oriented, and then the policies of the Canadian Government or the needs of the Canadian public, particulary so in a situation
February 17, 1987

where it should compete with an American company which cannot be expected to promote public policy since its only concern is to follow the dictates of the market and show a profit.
Mr. Speaker, 1 think it will be very difficult for Teleglobe Canada to represent Canadian public interests and maintain world-wide communications when pressure will be brought to bear on the company to serve only those sectors where it stands to make the greatest profits. I think there will be a conflict of interests between the need to provide services and the need to make a profit.
[DOT]	(1650)


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell).


Mr. Attewell:: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(a) I wish to state that the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering second reading stage of Bill C-38-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 wish to advise the Hon. Member that he cannot move such a motion during the time allotted for questions and comments. There is still a minute-and-a-half left in that time.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) on a question or comment.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question I was asking my colleague, he too cannot imagine why the Government would want to sell Teleglobe, such a profitable company. I too was trying to find a reason.
[DOT]	(1700)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 would remind the Hon. Member that he has one minute left on questions and comments when the Orders of the Day are resumed.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   THE JUDICIARY ADVISABILITY OF ESTABLISHING PROCESS FOR SCRUTINY OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East) moved:: The Judiciary
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of undertaking negotiations with the provincial Governments to establish a process for the parliamentary scrutiny of federal judicial appointments made under Section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, in order to ensure that in making these appointments, the Government is guided by the highest standards of conduct.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move the motion with a view to establishing a system and process of parliamentary scrutiny for all federal judicial appointments. The purpose of that is to reinforce public trust that all judicial appointments are of the highest calibre, and that in making those appointments, the Government is guided by the highest standards of conduct.
During the 1984 election campaign, the appointment of lawyers to the bench was a major issue. In particular, the former Prime Minister Trudeau, before he handed over power, entered into an agreement with the then Prime Minister, Mr. Turner, which called for a number of people to be appointed to various positions, including a number of people who were to be appointed to the bench. At that time, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Turner, who is now the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra, made those judicial appointments. In doing so, he touched off a controversy that is still going on.
I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, as recently as last month the appointment to the Court of Appeal of the Province of Manitoba made in the person of the former Premier of the Province of Manitoba, Sterling Lyons. There was a controversy around that appointment and the method of that appointment. The law union of Ontario had some comments on that, and I will be referring to those comments later in my remarks.
As a result of the concerns that were raised during the election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made a statement in the House on September 5, 1985. In that statement he dealt with a package of reforms that included an experimental program for the parliamentary scrutiny of Governor in Council appointments. At that time the question of judicial appointments was excluded from that parliamentary scrutiny. At that time the Prime Minister indicated that the Minister of Justice had the question of judicial appointments under active review. Unfortunately, that review is apparently still going on, and as yet we have not heard the results.
The motion that I put before the House today is in the hope that the Government will move on this, complete the review, and take some action here.
I do not wish to leave the impression that I am in any way questioning the competence of our judiciary or the high calibre of our judges. I do believe that we have a judiciary of a very high calibre in this country and that we are well served. At the same time, I share the concerns that were expressed in 1984 by the Chief Justice when he said that the public is entitled to be reassured that our judges are appointed on the basis of merit and legal excellence alone.
I also share the concerns expressed by the Canadian Bar Association about the independence of the judiciary in their

February 17, 1987
The Judiciary
report of August, 1985, where they indicated that the existence of political influence in judicial appointments could undermine public confidence in the judicial system. That is what I am trying to accomplish with this motion. I am trying to make sure that public confidence in the judicial system is not undermined, but is in fact bolstered by a new system of appointments.
You are aware, Mr. Speaker, as are Members of the House, that the Government has a number of different ways of making federal judicial appointments. There are five different statutory federal courts: the Federal Court, the Northwest Territories Court, the Yukon Court, the Tax Court, and the Supreme Court of Canada. In addition to that there are appointments made under Section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Those are appointments that are made by the Governor General to the superior, district, and county courts in each province, except the courts of probate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. As I indicated, those appointments are made under Section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
In practice the process that is followed at the present time calls for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to recommend to the Governor in Council via the Cabinet persons who are to be considered for judicial appointments. Of course, the appointment of a Chief Justice rests with the Prime Minister. In practice, in following that process, the Minister of Justice does not appoint someone off the top of his head. There are people in his Department, in fact in the office of the special adviser to the Minister of Justice, who gather suggestions from across the country on these judicial appointments. The suggestions may come from you, Mr. Speaker, they may come from me, or from anyone in Canada or abroad, for that matter, as to who might be appointed as a judge by the Governor in Council.
After those suggestions have been vetted and a tentative choice has been made, the candidate's name is normally submitted to the National Committee of the Judiciary of the Canadian Bar Association to receive their opinion and evaluation. Normally, that committee comes back with an opinion that the suggested candidate is either well qualified, or not sufficiently qualified.
During the last federal election campaign there were two or three appointments made to the bench, the ones that touched off the controversy, where there was no request made to the Canadian Bar Association for its input. That is what put the fat in the fire and caused the public concern to be raised about whether the process was one which ensured that the best individuals were appointed to the bench, or whether the process in place is one that is being manipulated in some way.
Over the years there have been a number of different proposals for reform. There was one made by the Tremblay Commission in 1956. There was another made at the Constitutional Conference in 1971. There were further proposals made in 1978 and 1979. The Canadian Bar Association made recommendations in 1985. Quebec made some changes to their procedure in 1978.
However, the Americans have a process which is most interesting, that is, a process whereby a committee of the Senate vets the recommendations made by the President of the United States. In scrutinizing the suggested appointments, that committee can recommend for or against the appointment, or it can delay the matter. It is this type of review that I am suggesting we should be undertaking in this country. That review would be open to all Members of Parliament and all members of the public, but it is not the kind of review the Department of Justice, or probably the Minister of Justice, would like to see. I think we will hear from some government supporters today who will oppose this idea because they do not think it is the way to go.
As well, it is not the kind of procedure the Bar Association would like to see established, but it is a procedure which would be open to the public and would give us a solution, at long last, to one of the major concerns of Canadians in the last election campaign. It would reinforce public trust that all judicial appointments are of the highest calibre and that in making those appointments the Government is guided by the highest standard of conduct.
For those reasons I urge the House to adopt the motion and to put in place a process for a new method of parliamentary scrutiny of judicial appointments.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this afternoon's debate on motion M-43 introduced in the House by the Hon. Member for Scarborough East.

I listened with great attention to the Hon. Member for Scarborough West-


Alan Redway: I am the Hon. Member for York East.


Don Boudria: I apologize to the Hon. Member for mixing up the ridings. As Mr. Speaker knows, some Members mix up the name of my riding as well, particularly when they forget one of its three names. I am sure that you have heard it before, Mr. Speaker.
Nevertheless, the Hon. Member brings before the House a motion which I certainly support and have advocated in the past. I am not sure whether I agreed entirely with him when he referred to the cause of the controversy in the last election campaign. Some of the controversy over Order in Council appointments in the last election was caused by a certain gentleman who now represents the riding of Manicouagan. On May 24, 1983, the particular fellow was quoted in The Globe and Mail of Toronto as saying the following:
There I! be jobs for Liberals and NDPs too, after I've been Prime Minister for 15 years and I can't find a living breathing Tory in the country.
On June 25, 1984, as reported in The Ottawa Citizen, the Leader of the Conservative Party said that his Government
February 17, 1987

will be determined to reduce the partisan political appointments that have characterized the previous administration.
On July 9, 1984, the same fellow said:
1 commit myself to set up criteria for quality which will impress the Canadian people. 1 think what took place is completely unacceptable in an open democratic society. We are going to reform this instrument in our national life.
Those were the comments of the Leader of the Conservative Party at a press conference on July 9, 1984.
On July 16, 1984, the same fellow said that the Liberal appointments were "a fraud, a deceit and a sham", according to Canadian Press. Again on July 16 he said that Conservative appointments would represent the highest quality of people. Also on the same date he said:
The method of making appointments could be corrected by dramatic measures... We are going to bring in a brand new dimension to them of objectivity and representation and fairness for all Canadians.
Those were his comments, again according to the Canadian Press. During the same month he made comments concerning the appointment of Mr. Mackasey. I am not sure it would be parliamentary for me to raise them on the floor of the House, so I shall not.
On July 19, 1984 he promised that if he became Prime Minister he would "never resort to this kind of attitude". He spoke a lot about the issue, and on July 20 he said that the "overriding criteria will be competence and a willingness to serve Canada".
Need I remind the House of his July 25 statement on nation-wide television. He pointed his finger and said:
The least you should do is apologize for having made these horrible appointments.
Those were comments of the Conservative Leader.
I have in my possession a document entitled "The Black Paper on Tory Patronage". It lists no less than 1,200 political appointments of all varieties during the first eight months or so that the Government was in office.
As much as I agree with the Hon. Member for York-East that there is certainly a need to change the system, the reason we must change it is a very clear one. It is that the Leader of the Conservative Party made it such an issue in the last election campaign and was incapable of living with the solemn promise he made to the people of Canada on many occasions.
Referring to the Order in Council review process as proposed by the Hon. Member for York-East, he is suggesting that we have a system which would resemble the present system of reviewing other Order in Council appointments. By and large I think the system has worked well over the last year or so. It has provided Members of Parliament with an opportunity to air a grievance when there is a controversial Order in Council appointment. Most appointments are completely overlooked by Members. They look at the names and the names do not mean anything to them, or they inquire in various areas and find out that the individual is qualified, and they do not proceed any further.
The Judiciary
On the other hand, there are the "Dalton Camp" variety of appointments which lead to controversy and to some questioning in committee. That is healthy as well because it at least gives parliamentarians on all sides of the House an opportunity to raise the grievance at committee. That is good for two reasons-first, it is good accountability, second, it gives the Government an opportunity for second thought. Whereas the Government may proceed with a controversial appointment, if it knows just before doing so that it will be subject to scrutiny by the Order in Council appointment process, perhaps it would have a second look at it and say, "We had better not bring this before the parliamentary committee because it will raise a considerable amount of attention; let us not appoint this controversial individual" or "this less than totally qualified individual", as the case may be.
For that reason alone I believe the quality of Order in Council appointments is bound to improve. I think it has improved over the last year in which the Order in Council process has existed. As the Hon. Member for York-East said, it does not exist for the judiciary and for other areas as well.
In closing I should like to make a few comments about veto power for the parliamentary committee. I do not think the committee needs veto power in the case of judiciary appointments. I suppose it could be tried for some processes, but I do not think this would be a good place in which to try it. The fact that Parliament would have a method of raising a grievance would be good. However, there are some 60 or 64 Order in Council appointments which deal directly with the House where a parliamentary committee should have veto power. Those concern the appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer, the Clerk of the House of Commons, the Official Languages Commissioner, and so on. The report of the McGrath Commission recommended that there be a veto process for those individuals. I believe that would be healthy. We could start there. Depending on how it works-and presumably it would be less partisan because we are dealing with officers who report to the Speaker of the House-we could decide later about expanding it elsewhere if it were necessary and desirable. However, it would be premature to say that it would be necessary at this point in the case of judicial appointments.
Having said that, however, I whole-heartedly agree with the motion of the Hon. Member for York-East. Indeed it is a valid concern to be raised. As the Hon. Member will know, I have raised the issue, not particularly as it relates to the appointment of judges but with regard to appointments generally, in the House of Commons on several occasions.

Mr. Speaker, the subject raised today by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) has been broached a number of times before in the House. Clearly, the Prime Minister of Canada made some promises to the Canadian people, and if the House were to adopt the motion as presented by the Hon. Member for York East, the Government would perhaps have a chance to make good on one of those promises. I need hardly add there are still a number of other promises on which the

February 17, 1987
The Judiciary
Government has yet to deliver the goods, but we could perhaps discuss that at some other time. For the time being, I would like to say that as far as I am concerned, the motion by the Hon. Member for York East is one that deserves the support of the whole House.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), and to commend him for bringing this important issue before the House. I hope that, at the conclusion of the hour which is allotted to these proceedings today, Members of this House will see fit to adopt the motion in question. I am not holding my breath, but I believe this is a motion which is reasonable and worthy of support by the House.
I note as well that the Hon. Member for York East is merely suggesting in that time-worn manner which is so appropriate that the Government should consider the advisability of undertaking negotiations. This does not bind the Government in any way. It just urges the Government to look seriously at this suggestion which I believe is entirely appropriate.
I must say as well that I was rather amused to hear the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) attack the Tory Government for its excesses of patronage. I would suggest that Liberals have no lessons to give in this Parliament or to the people of Canada when it comes to patronage, absolutely no lessons whatever. I recall very well the time about two months before the last election when the now Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) engaged in a great orgy of patronage when every living, breathing Liberal Member of Parliament who was not seeking re-election was appointed to some hog-marketing board, the Canadian Wheat Tribunal or the Immigration Appeal Board. There was an appointment for everybody. Jobs for the boys and girls, Mr. Speaker.


Don Boudria: What about Ian Deans?


Svend Johannes Robinson: It was absolutely shameless. When the Liberal Member stands up and lambastes the Conservatives for their excesses of patronage, I would very gently remind him that one of the reasons his Government was turfed out of office was that Canadians got sick and tired of the Liberals' excesses of patronage.
With respect to the proposal before the House, I can think of no body which is more important and essential in terms of the shaping of many of the most fundamental values and aspirations of our country then the highest courts of the land, the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. We have as a Parliament adopted a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The final word with respect to the interpretation of that fundamental document rests not in our hands as elected Members, but rather in the hands of those men and women who are appointed under Section 96 of the Constitution Act to
federal judicial appointments. It is up to those men and women to determine, for example, what is or is not demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society under Section 1 of the Charter.
What are the limits that we as a society are prepared to accept on fundamental rights and freedoms? At the present time these judicial appointments, these appointments to the highest courts of the land, are made solely by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in the case of the Supreme Court of Canada and solely by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) in the case of others. In some cases, these appointments are made following consultations with the Attorney General of the province in question. In other cases, even the minimal courtesy of consultation with the Attorney General of the day is ignored. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the recent appointment of Sterling Rufus Lyon, former Premier of the Province of Manitoba, to the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Mr. Lyon was appointed to that very important position in the federal judiciary without any consultation whatever by the federal Minister of Justice with his provincial counterpart, the Attorney General of the Province of Manitoba. That kind of arrogance and insensitivity in an area as fundamental as this is surely unacceptable. That total lack of consultation, that appointment of a Tory crony, would not be possible if the motion of the Hon. Member for York East were adopted.
We have had some experience in this Parliament with the parliamentary review process into federal appointments. As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Rights I participated in a process, which admittedly was a flawed process, an engineered process, but nevertheless gave us the opportunity to ask a few questions of appointees who appeared to have been appointed solely on the basis of partisan political connections to the Government of the day. What is interesting is that one individual knew that he would have to undergo this kind of scrutiny and it was sufficient to cause him to withdraw his name as a member of that tribunal. That is of considerable significance and another reason for supporting the motion of the Member for York East.
I am reminded of the attempts of former President Richard Nixon in the United States to appoint to the highest court of the land in the U.S., the United States Supreme Court, individuals who were clearly unqualified. Had it not been for the fact that the Senate of the United States in its judiciary committee said no to the appointments, those individuals would be sitting on that court possibly still today, patently unqualified.
I mention the Supreme Court of Canada and the vital importance of an opportunity for parliamentary review of appointees to this highest court in the land. I do this in view of the fact that there is a vacancy at the Supreme Court of Canada level due to the tragic death of former Justice Julien Chouinard, and I urge the Government to appoint a woman. There are a number of qualified outstanding jurists who would fill this vacancy at the Supreme Court of Canada with distinction. I think of people such as Madam Justice Claire
February 17, 1987

L'Heureux-Dube of the Quebec Court of Appeal. There are a number of others. We must send out a message that equality in Canada is a reality at all levels, including the highest court in the land.
Because I know that some of my colleagues wish to comment and support this resolution as well, I want to close by commending the Hon. Member for York East for bringing this important question before the House of Commons today and to urge all Members to support it, particularly in recognition of the fact that it merely calls upon the Government to consider the advisability of undertaking negotiations. These judges are making decisions that will shape the future of this land for decades to come. It is essential that we as Members of Parliament, in the highest court of the land play a role in ensuring that we know just who the men and women are who are occupying these vital positions.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, like those who have spoken previously, I want to say a few words on behalf of this motion which, I believe, is not only in the best interests of the people but is an extension of a principle of accountability that has already been established in this Parliament under the leadership of this Government. We have had our first experience of parliamentary review of major appointments. This has been the first Parliament with a Government prepared to risk a public review of its nominations and appointments. There is more accountability under this Government than the people of Canada have ever known before.
The motion before us recommends to the Government and the House that we take a major step forward. I certainly commend the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) for the leadership that he has characteristically shown in putting before us this initiative, which I hope will receive the support of the House and will lead to the action the Hon. Member anticipates.
I support the motion because of the authority and scope the judiciary has come to gain in recent times. Members of the judiciary have always enjoyed great authority and power, but because of the very nature and development of the law, they are now in a position which is unparalleled and unprecedented. They are now not only interpreting and applying laws but, at various levels, they are making laws because their interpretations are the binding authority by which laws will be implemented in, and applied to, society. It is surely reasonable and essential that appointments to positions of that magnitude have the approval and support of the elected representatives of the people of Canada.
The quality of our judiciary has certainly come a long way. I can recall beginning my working life as a newspaper reporter who spent part of his time covering police court hearings, as they were then called. I remember one magistrate whose sole professional qualification for being on the Bench was his years as a retail merchant. It was a patronage appointment made by
The Judiciary
a previous Liberal Government in Ontario. However, the partisan nature of the appointment is not the crucial thing, however much we may want to dwell on partisanship from one point of view or another. The important thing was that it was then possible for a person to occupy a position on the Bench without professional qualifications.
I doubt that is possible today, and rightly so. However, we want to see that not only professional qualifications are demanded but that we be satisfied as a Parliament that the person receiving a judicial appointment, certainly at the highest levels, will be one whose professional qualifications are superior, who has views on society compatible with those of the majority of Canadians, and who can interpret the law in a way appropriate to the traditions of Canada and the thinking of the majority of Canadians today.
I do not want to take up the full time allotted to me because I know there are other Hon. Members who wish to have a say on this important and significant motion. However, I would point out very briefly that an argument could be made against this motion that, contrary to the intention of the mover, it would discourage some people from being willing to assume high judicial office because they would then have to face, terror of terrors, Members of Parliament.
I find it extraordinary to think that any other official appointed to any other post of authority under this Government would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny except one kind of official, namely, a member of the judiciary. This, I submit, without any slight to members of the judiciary, is surely to build an unnatural and indefensible wall around the judiciary. If it was justified at any time in the past, it is not so now because of the very nature of our society as an increasingly open society and because of the very nature and scope of the law today applied to more and more instances and experiences of life. It is therefore mandatory that the people who are prepared to take this office are also prepared to be examined for it, to explain themselves and to justify their views. I think that would be far better than having persons appointed to the Bench now and then having their reputations impugned by Members of Parliament in certain situations without their having the opportunity to reply to charges or insinuations that Hon. Members might make.
I believe that rather than discouraging persons who would be qualified and suitable and indeed eminent members of the Bench, this motion will assert that anyone who is prepared to mount the Bench, to interpret the law and to apply the law to society is one who is prepared to face the representatives of the people over whom the judge will preside as a member of the judiciary. That person will put his or her views to the test and will be all the more effective a judge as a result.
I am very glad the Hon. Member for York East has brought this motion to the House. I along with other Hon. Members certainly hope that it will come to a vote and that it will be an affirmative one.

February 17, 1987
The Judiciary


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the subject of this motion. 1 am sorry, and it is probably my own fault, that I had only a few moments to think about it. However, I had no trouble reaching a decision. I can say that I am definitely opposed to the motion and that my objections concern two major aspects.

As I indicated, there are two features of this resolution, one which is at the heart of it and one which is peripheral, that are objectionable to me. I think I ought to talk about each of them briefly.
First, I would like to deal with the feature in the preamble of consulting with provincial Governments, that is to say, that in every federal judicial appointment, there should be some consultation with the provincial Governments. I do not think it is a bad idea-


Alan Redway: You have to be careful to understand it. A constitutional amendment is required to Section 96 of the Act. It is not a question of consulting about the appointments; it is a question of consulting about a change of law to change the procedure.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1 am glad to have heard that interjection. The mover of the motion is reminding me that the implementation of this resolution would call for some constitutional machinery. That is not why I object to it. I do not object to the idea of constitutional machinery. I do wonder why a one-way street should be established from provincial capitals to the national capital.
Provinces appoint a number of people to judicial offices within each province. If the responsibility for the system of justice in Canada is shared in that way, why is it that there are people who sit in the federal Parliament who feel that provincial Governments should have some input into the federal appointment process while being silent on the idea that the federal Government should have some-


Alan Redway: Read the rest of the resolution, Bob.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I think I would like to finish and then perhaps the Hon. Member will be able to write a letter to the editor about my remarks.
If provincial Governments are to be involved in the process of federal appointments, I would argue that an equal claim could be made that there ought to be some federal consultation in relation to the appointment of provincial judges. I appreciate the point made by the Hon. Member. He wants to establish a procedure for the review of federal appointments, and I would like to make the point that if provincial consultation is necessary to establish it and the provinces in that eventuality-


Alan Redway: Part of it created by your Government.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Could I have the opportunity to make my remarks without interruption?


Cyril Keeper: No.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would object to the provinces finding their way into the appointment process unless there was some reciprocity.
Let me turn to the central point, that there ought to be parliamentary scrutiny of federal judicial appointments made under Section 93 of the Constitution Act. I want to found my remarks on the report of the Canadian Bar Association committee on the appointment of judges in Canada issued on August 20, 1985, and very well received. The report deals with the question of parliamentary scrutiny and rejects it, as the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) may know. The report says that Parliament should not play a role in the selection or appointment of federal judges. It is neither necessary nor desirable for the legislative branch to be involved. It is contrary to the Canadian tradition for the appointment of judges to be subjected to a congressional-type process of public examination and review.
Those who have spoken before me in this debate have referred to the American experience. However, the American Constitution is fundamentally different from ours. The executive in this country derives its legitimacy from the support of the House of Commons. The executive in the U.S. derives its legitimacy from the fact it is directly elected by the people. The same applies to the U.S. Congress. In that sense Congress can claim an independent responsibility for the judiciary. The executive nominates, but in a system of checks and balances Congress has some role to play in the appointment of judges. In our system the executive controls the House of Commons. If it did not, it would not be able to hold on to power and make appointments. Therefore the idea that the American experience is somehow irrelevant to us is totally inappropriate. It is a different kind of system.
I would also assert that nothing that has happened in the appointment of Canadian judges, over recent history in any event, justifies parliamentary scrutiny. People can make the point, as some have done, that a bad Government might make bad appointments and the House of Commons might be able to find enough gumption or independence to do something about it despite the fact that the majority is controlled by Cabinet. However, I do not think it is the nature of the Opposition in this House to play a constructive role, nor does it have a constitutional responsibility for the appointment of judges, a system which, according to the Canadian Bar Association and 1 think according to most Canadians, has been working quite well and serving the national interest quite well. In saying that I do not want to be taken as having said that the system for appointing judges is perfect. I just have to look at the Canadian Bar Association report, because it does not just endorse what we do now, it recommends a number of changes
February 17, 1987

designed to enhance the appearance of independence, the process, and the amount of public involvement in the process.
I want to deal now with one of the recommendations in this report with which I do not agree. I want to return to the point made from the floor by the Hon. Member for York East. 1 do not know if I have his ear, but in this report a recommendation is made that provincial attorneys-general ought to be consulted in the federal appointment process. I took it from the first few lines of the resolution that provincial Governments would participate. My friend is making the point that the role of provincial Governments in his resolution is only to change the Constitution and not deal with the appointment of judges. However, this report recommends that attorneys-general be given a role in the process of appointing federal judges.
1 want to ask the same question in that context that I asked in connection with his resolution. If provincial attorneys-general are to be given a role in the federal appointment process, and I oppose that, then the federal Government should be given a role in the provincial appointment process. After all, the justice field is shared between the federal and provincial Governments and this one-way street suggestion made by the CBA overlooks the fact that the federal Government has a great interest in the competence and qualifications of all judges in the system. The federal Government relies on provincial Governments because that is the way the Constitution is designed. The provincial Governments, for their part, have to rely on the federal Government for the way in which federal appointments are made and the quality of the people appointed. If I were to be engaged in a change which would bring a provincial perspective to the federal appointment process I would want to see it move the other way as well. However, as I say, I have reservations about both of them.
On the whole I do not think the history of federal appointments has shown any justification for scrutiny by Parliament. If parliamentary scrutiny is to be applied to judicial appointments it will have the effect of politicizing them in a way they have not been to date because of the role the Opposition plays in this House. That role, I would argue, unlike the U.S. system, is to politicize and object. It is not similar to the role of the U.S. Congress in making the American system work.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate this evening on Motion No. 43 presented by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), which concerns the appointment of judges. Mr. Speaker, to help Canadians understand what the debate is about this evening, perhaps I may explain that the Hon. Member for York East would like us to start negotiations with the provincial Governments in order to establish a process for the parliamentary scrutiny of federal judicial appointments.
Mr. Speaker, although I agree with the substance of the motion, I must object to it, unfortunately, and I have two specific reasons for doing so.
The Judiciary
First of all, the Hon. Member is suggesting that we relinquish federal authority to appoint judges to the provincial governments. This may be going a little too far, because today, when such appointments are made, there is already a certain amount of consultation that goes on with the provinces, but I think we should be very careful how we consider any proposal to undertake negotiations with the provincial governments with respect to appointments.
My second point, Mr. Speaker, which may be rather interesting, is the question of parliamentary committees. I may remind my hon. friend that not long ago at the caucus meeting in Laval about two weeks ago, Quebec Members made a proposal in this respect which I think deserves our attention and which is substantially similar to what is being suggested by the Hon. Member for York East who would like to see something different in the procedure for judicial appointments.
Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about the appointment of judges, why could we not study the proposition of the Quebec caucus to the effect that a selection process be put in place, a kind of board for these appointments which could examine the qualifications of people likely to be appointed to the bench? For example, Mr. Speaker, this board could be made up of people like the chief justice of the court involved, where the new judge is to be appointed, a Bar representative, an official designated by the Government, and probably somebody to represent the government of the province where the whole thing is taking place. The board could hold hearings for all individuals duly qualified for and interested in an appointment, then it would prepare a list of applicants with the required qualifications to be appointed to the bench and present this list to the Government which would select the appointee.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind you that this process- exactly as I just described it-this process of a committee or a group including the various categories of people mentioned has now been in existence in Quebec for about ten years, and every time an appointment has been announced there have been negative comments concerning the individual appointed to the bench.
I think that my colleague and I agree on the principle, we differ only on the way to go about it. I doubt whether a parliamentary committee would really be the best way to make these appointments to the bench. I believe that individuals who are already in this field-Bar members would qualify for this, I think-would be in an ideal position to assess the qualifications of people applying for judgeship, just as much as the chief justice of the court involved, and the federal or provincial governments could appoint a representative who would sit on this appointment board.
Mr. Speaker, this is the position that I wanted to outline in this House, but I still want to congratulate the Hon. Member for his interest in the issue of judiciary appointments and add that I also believe that we should find another method for making these appointments.

February 17, 1987
Adjournment Debate


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), moved:
That the Government should consider the advisability of undertaking negotiations with the provincial Governments to establish a process for the parliamentary scrutiny of federal judicial appointments made under section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1987, in order to ensure that in making these appointments, the Government is guided by the highest standards of conduct.
No one can disagree with the view that, in order to maintain the public trust with respect to judicial appointments, those appointments must be of the highest calibre. There also is no disagreement that in making those appointments the Government must be guided by the highest standards of conduct. No previous Government has taken as many steps as the present one to improve the practice of consultation with the provinces, the Bench and the Bar. Furthermore, as the Hon. Member knows, the constitutional negotiations currently under way by the Province of Quebec include the question of that province's role in the appointment of the three judges from Quebec who were required to serve on the Supreme Court of Canada.
Referring specifically to the motion presently before the House, it is my belief that it would have exactly the opposite effect to that intended by the Hon. Member for York East. By subjecting prospective judicial appointees to the scrutiny of the parliamentary committee comprised of political partisans, the public trust in the calibre of appointments could conceivably diminish. While it cannot be predicted with any certainty in advance, review by a parliamentary committee may well reduce the quality of candidates willing to accept an appointment. Furthermore, there is a risk that anything a prospective appointee says before that committee will be interpreted by some group or another as raising a reasonable apprehension of bias with respect to the judicial proceedings over which that appointee subsequently presides.
Another shortcoming of this motion is that it would send the wrong signal to the provinces with respect to their own appointment process involving provincial court judges. The federal Government is, quite appropriately in my view, looked upon for leadership in matters of this nature. By adopting this Bill we would be telling the provinces that they, too, should screen prospective judicial appointees in this manner. I do not think we should do that. To date not one province or provincial official has advocated vetting judicial candidates through a parliamentary committee. Nor, for that matter, has any leading member of the Bar advocated such an approach. In fact, it was expressly rejected in 1985 by the report of the Canadian Bar Association committee on the appointment of judges in Canada and, subsequently, by the Canadian Association of Law Teachers.
I really do commend my colleague from York East for his consideration and his upholding of the way the Government and any Government makes appointments, be they judicial or otherwise. I feel very strongly that because the report of the
Canadian Bar Association on the appointment of judges in Canada rejected such a recommendation, we must take a very long look at this.
This motion complements my friend's Private Member's Bill, Bill C-259, which he tabled about one year ago which failed to win the support of this House. That Bill called for the parliamentary scrutiny of judges appointed to the so-called Section 101 courts. I did not support Bill C-259 when it was tabled, and my views with respect to parliamentary screening of judges have not changed. I feel very strongly that competence comes first. Competence must always come first in appointments, and the public must have trust in the Government with respect to judicial appointments which must be of the highest calibre.
There is no disagreement that, in making those appointments, the Government must be guided by the highest standards of conduct. Our courts and the people appointed to the judicial boards must be of the highest standard possible. I know that the people of the Government, as well as all the people of Canada, would certainly demand and expect to have competence come first. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I did not support Bill C-259 when it was tabled and, with respect to parliamentary screening of judges, I have not changed my views.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order shall be dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the packing industry for the killing and processing of meat products has played an important role in the economic wellbeing of the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba for many years. It is not surprising that I asked a question about the possible demise of the Canada Packers plant and the very serious effects that this would have on the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba.
Some years ago, Swift Canadian, which had employed hundreds of workers in their packing plant in Winnipeg, closed down and left workers unemployed. Now we are facing the lay-off of 450 workers, many of whom have worked for
February 17, 1987

Canada Packers for many years. This lay-off will take place in April of this year.
There is a distinct possibility that another 550 workers employed by Canada Packers will lose their jobs, as the company is considering very seriously the closing of its whole packing plant in the City of Winnipeg.
How did this happen? In 1986, the federal Government made an initial grant of $865,000 to facilitate the establishment of a hog killing and processing plant in Neepawa. That plant opened in September. When the Government made the announcement that it would make this grant available so that a plant which could kill and process hogs could be established in Neepawa, the union representing workers in Winnipeg warned the Government of the dire consequences of that action. They pointed out that there was very little increase in the number of hogs that are processed in the Province of Manitoba and predicted that if the plant opened in Neepawa it would have very serious adverse effects on the Canada Packers plant in Winnipeg.
In December, 1986, unfortunately the warnings of the union were proven correct. Canada Packers announced the closure of its beef kill and processing operation at its Winnipeg plant. As I already mentioned, 450 workers will lose their jobs in April.
The existing plant in Winnipeg is about 50 years old. The company also announced the real possibility of closing its entire Winnipeg plant in 1988, unless it decides to build a new modern processing plant. The company made it clear that it would not proceed with the building of a new plant without financial assistance from the federal and provincial Governments.
Most of the workers who will be laid off in April, and the rest of the 1000 workers who would lose their jobs if the whole plant closes, have worked for that company for many years. It will be very difficult for many of them to find other work.
I call on the federal Government to act in co-operation with the company and the provincial Government to assist in financing the building of a new Canada Packers plant in Winnipeg.
Discussions are also taking place about expanding the Burns plant in Winnipeg, which would give work to 200 more workers. If the Government is considering financial assistance to that plant, I urge it to require the Burns company plant to give first opportunity for employment in the expanded plant to workers who have been or may be laid off by Canada Packers, as one of the conditions for receiving the grant.


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) I would like to elaborate on the action being taken to help the workers who are to be laid off from the Canada Packers plant in Winnipeg.
Adjournment Debate
First, the Minister wants to underline that he shares the concerns of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) with respect to the future of these workers. Like him, the Minister believes that every effort must be made to help these workers through the difficult adjustment they face. The Minister also agrees that the best results will be achieved if the company, the employees, the federal Government and the provincial Government work together to put in place the assistance the workers need.
To this end, intensive discussions took place throughout January between Employment and Immigration Commission officials, company and union representatives, as well as with senior officials of both the provincial Department of Labour and the Department of Employment Services and Economic Security.
On behalf of the Minister I am pleased to be able to report that agreement has just been reached with all parties to begin work immediately on a joint adjustment action plan. The federal Government will participate through the Commission's Industrial Adjustment Service, and the Province of Manitoba will do so through its Employment Adjustment and Technological Change Program, a Manitoba jobs fund initiative.
Activity will be carried out by two committees. One, composed of company and union representatives, will address the needs of the 400 hourly-rated workers; the other, composed of company and non-union employees, will address the needs of the 75 salaried workers.
Committee costs will be shared equally by the company, the province and the federal Government. Both committees will be chaired by the same independent chairperson to be chosen by the committee members themselves. The Commission and the Province of Manitoba have each identified representatives to assist and advise the committees. The types of assistance which the committees can consider recommending are many and varied. They can range from retraining, sessions on resume writing or job search techniques, to job counselling, vocational testing or financial counselling.
This is an urgent situation and one in which none of the parties intend to let the grass grow under their feet. It is also an excellent example of federal, provincial and private sector co-operation.
Although the circumstances are difficult, the Minister is confident that through the joint efforts of Canada Packers, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and both levels of Government every possible resource will be tapped and organized to help the workers prepare for, and find, new jobs.


FISHERIES-MARKETING OF FRESHWATER FISH-SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked of the Minister of Fisheries and Ocean (Mr. Siddon) was on October 30. Thus some time has passed since the questioning took place. However, it does not really matter

February 17, 1987
Adjournment Debate
since the question was about the marketing of freshwater fish, which problem has been with us for many, many years. In fact, it has been with us since the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was established. I am afraid it will be with us for some time to come unless action is taken quickly by the Minister of Fisheries. I realize that cod and tuna are in the limelight; but I think that white fish and trout should also have their day in court.
The problem with FFMC is that it has a monopoly. The fishermen are not allowed to sell fish to any other body than the FFMC. No competition in the industry is allowed. It is forbidden to Canadian citizens to become buyers, sellers or dealers of freshwater fish in the parts of the country to which the FFM Act applies. New marketing ideas cannot be tried because of the FFMC. Fishermen in my part of the country, in the Northwest Territories, feel that they have been neglected by FFMC, which tends to concentrate on the Lake Winnipeg area.
We produce a premium product that ought to be sold for premium prices. But we fear that our top quality fish has been used in some way to subsidize the lower quality Manitoba production. That may or may not be true. But unless there is competition, and people are allowed to try new marketing ideas, we will never know for sure.
I can assure you that the state of the NWT fishing industry is desperate. It depends on continued subsidies to keep it going, about $.5 million a year from the territorial Government alone' That was not the case when private enterprise was in the business of selling fish. Now there is bureaucratic regulation rather than an open market system.
The Senate report was a very thorough study. Under the Hon. Jack Marshall, the Senate committee travelled widely throughout the freshwater country. They went to Hay River in the Northwest Territories, received the advice of territorial government fishermen's organizations and a wide variety of the general public. The local press contained a number of articles, and the report was favourably received. This was an illustration of the Senate doing its job. There was excellent work done by this conscientious Senate committee. The committee came up with a series of good recommendations. In my opinion, they pulled the punches a little bit. They could have been more straightforward, but they did a good job.
The committee's recommendation 13(b) was probably the most important in that report. That recommendation recommended the licensing of private fish dealers, and the return of private enterprise to the fish business. People are out there who are ready and willing to do this once the authorization has been given. Not long ago I was talking to some Chinese friends who told me that white fish that are salted in a special way command a price in Hong Kong of about $8 a pound. They would like to get into the business of specially salting this fish. Presently the fishermen receive a few cents a pound for the product, so there is a new market that needs to be tapped.
We need authorization by the Minister so that this licensing can take place, and private enterprise can be brought back into the business. It is my considered opinion that unless private enterprise and competition is not brought back into the northern fishery, that fishery will perish. Of that there is no doubt.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) has asked for the Government's response to the interim report on the freshwater fisheries that was prepared by the Senate Committee on Fisheries. I applaud the concern shown by the Hon. Member for his constituents and for freshwater fishermen throughout the West. His knowledge in this field is unquestioned in the House, and the Minister thanks him for his input on issues of this nature.
To date that committee has published only the first of a series of interim reports entitled The Marketing of Fish in Canada. Although the report is entitled marketing of fish, it contains some 20 wide ranging recommendations. They deal with such issues as resource management, federal, provincial and territorial matters, the mandate of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, and, of course, marketing.
The Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was established in 1969 at the request of provincial Governments for the purpose of bringing order to the marketing of freshwater fish products, and increasing returns to the approximately 3,500 fishermen involved in these fisheries.
Since 1969, the Corporation has been successful in meeting the objectives of its mandate, as indicated in the annual reports of the Corporation which have been tabled in the House each year.
The Corporation continues to enjoy the support of the participating Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, and the Northwest Territories. It also enjoys the support of the vast majority of the fishermen in the Corporation's territory. Officials in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have examined the recommendations with great care.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) has written to the distinguished Senate committee Chairman giving his views on the report. The Department is currently in the process of implementing many of the recommendations contained in the report. Subsequent reports dealing with the Atlantic and Pacific fisheries will receive the same attention and scrutiny, so that, as the Hon. Member mentioned, we can consider cod, salmon, white fish and trout.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION-LIBERAL PARTY CONVENTION RESOLUTIONS
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, the present Progressive Conservative Government is firmly committed to peace and to nuclear disarmament. That
February 17, 1987

is not a unilateral nuclear disarmament but a multilateral verifiable nuclear disarmament. It is only a multilateral verifiable nuclear disarmament which will ensure that we can continue to maintain our Canadian democratic values and institutions, to maintain the rule of law, to control our own country, to prevent war, to deter aggression, and to settle disputes peacefully.
This is why we in Government have in the past and will continue in the future to support NATO and co-operate with the United States in the defence of North America.
The Canadian Ambassador to NATO, Mr. Gordon Smith, told me last week that our commitment to NATO is the reason Canada is consulted by the United States in all negotiations which take place with a view to bringing about nuclear disarmament. The United States consults all its NATO allies. It consults Japan, it consults Australia, but it does not consult Switzerland or Sweden. It no longer consults New Zealand, since New Zealand decided to ban American ships from its ports on the basis that they might be carrying nuclear weapons or might have some sort of nuclear power. It is the basis of the right to be consulted and the fact that we are consulted which rests on our commitment to NATO.
While we may not have the ability to negotiate or the influence to change everything we would like to change in the way of the nuclear problems of the world, we have the power to be consulted, and we are consulted because of the commitment to NATO. Perhaps, because of that, we can shift the approach taken to negotiations for nuclear disarmament.
If we decided to leave NATO or, for that matter, unilaterally declared Canada to be a nuclear free zone, we would be forfeiting the ability to influence in some way the negotiations for nuclear disarmament or for other kinds of conventional disarmament, perhaps the consultations on the first use of nuclear weapons in Europe, or the decision to use nuclear weapons first, before anyone else does. We would be forfeiting the right to consultation. It makes no sense for us to forfeit that right or to get out of NATO, nor does it make any sense for us unilaterally to declare Canada a nuclear free zone. Whatever happens in a nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union, whether or not we are a nuclear free zone will not save our hides.
Because of that it is disturbing to hear that the Liberal Party of Canada, in its most recent convention, adopted a resolution which called upon Canada to become a nuclear free zone. It was distressing to hear members of the Liberal Party saying that it was now official policy of the Liberal Party that Canada be a nuclear free zone.
It is interesting that the former defence critic for the Liberal Party indicated that if that happened no longer could American warships call in Canadian ports, and that we would virtually be in the same position as New Zealand. It is interesting to note that the Liberal Member who said that is no longer the defence critic for the Liberal Party.
Adjournment Debate
It is disturbing as well to hear one Member of the Liberal Party, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), say that world peace is more important than membership in NATO. You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that NATO is synonymous with world peace. In fact, it has guaranteed peace in Europe and peace, as far as we are concerned in Canada, for the last 38 years. Of course it is not surprising when members of the New Democratic Party advocate that we get out of NATO or advocate a unilateral declaration of a nuclear free zone in Canada because that has been part of the NDP policy since 1969. It is not surprising when we hear New Democrats talking about it. But it is surprising and disturbing when we hear the Liberal Party talk about this same thing, particularly when Liberals have been such strong supporters of NATO and a multilateral and verifiable nuclear disarmament all these years yet now suddenly they are changing.
When it is time for the next election and the New Democrats and Liberals are asking for your support, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will consider very carefully the things they have been saying in the last few weeks and months about this issue of nuclear disarmament, NATO and about their commitments to NATO. As you well know, if we elect a Government which is not supportive of NATO, is not supportive of multilateral and verifiable disarmament, we are going to take ourselves out of the game of playing a role in the disarmament negotiations and risking at the same time Canadian democracy, values and institutions under the rule of law. That, I hope, you will bear in mind at the time of the next election, Mr. Speaker.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth time in the last five days that I have had the honour to stand and address you in my place. I only wish the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) could have been present. She alluded a short time ago in my constituency to the fact that she never sees me in the House and never hears me speak. This would have been a good opportunity for her.
I recall too clearly the confusion surrounding the resolutions regarding NATO that came out of the Liberal Party Convention in Ottawa in late November. Of course, I share my hon. colleague's concern about the kind of signal this sent to our allies. However, rather than dwell on what the Liberal Party stands for, let me repeat what the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) said in this House on December 1, 1986. He said:
__anything which substantially weakens Canada's commitment to NATO would
indeed weaken the western alliance and not contribute to the fulfillment of peace.
This statement, Mr. Speaker, parallels what the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said when he was Prime Minister, that if we are going to have any influence in working toward world peace we must first of all fulfil our commitments to our NATO allies.

February 17, 1987
Adjournment Debate
This Liberal resolution on NATO was raised at a Standing Committee on National Defence meeting on December 2 last where the Associate Minister was asked what the Government's reaction was. I think the Associate Minister's answer bears repeating. He said that the present Party in power which forms the Government of today supports NATO completely and absolutely.
Finally, let me say that Canada as a founding member of NATO has a long history within this important organization,
and we see no reason to alter our strong support and commitment to it now.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, February 18, 1987