During 1983 were any real estate firms assigned sale contracts by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Peterborough to dispose of houses in Victoria-Haliburton and, if so, what (a) is a list of all such firms (b) amount of commission was paid to the firms?

Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):

I am

informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation of the following:

In Victoria-Haliburton, in 1983, the properties offered for sale by CMHC were listed with various firms on a rotational basis and a 6 per cent commission paid on them.

(a) and (b) see below.

Firms Which Listed CMHC Properties in 1983 and Commission Earned

Listing

Agents

Amount of Commission

Re/Max

Howard Forder Ltd.

2,820

Bowes & Cocks

2,190

list of all the contractors (b) amounts were the contracts for (c) is a list of all the agents for the Program in these counties?

Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):

I am

informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation of the following: Yes.

(a) and (b) see below.

(c) CMHC delivers the Rural and Native Housing Program in Haliburton and Victoria counties. However, the Rural Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program is delivered by the three agents listed below.

Elinor Burke, Clerk, Corporation of the Townships of Anson, Hiden and Minden; Darrell Stamp, Assistant Clerk, Municipality of Dysart et al; Phyllis Nelson, Victoria Housing Corporation.

RNH Contracts Awarded by CMHC in 1983 in Haliburton and Victoria Counties

Contractor

G. Elstone Construction Co. Ltd.

Broadworth Construction C.W. Hicks

Jim Johnston Contracting

A. & A. Homes Ltd.

Blairs Contracting

Culligan Water Conditioners

Fleming Homes & Cottages

Don James & Sons Sand & Gravel Excavating Ltd.

C.W. Hicks Trimrite Construction

Amount of Contract $374,860 (7 contracts) 11,665 8,412 3.540

4.400 (2 contracts) 17,599 (2 contracts) 1,523

147,895 (3 contracts) 3.680

6,123

1. Did the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation publish advertisements in Vancouver-area newspapers on November 30, 1983 and, if so, at what total cost?

2. In the fiscal year 1983 did the Corporation spend any amount on advertising and promotion and, if so, what amount was spent in (a) British Columbia (b) Ontario (c) Quebec (d) all of Canada?

Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):

I am

informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:

1. Yes at a cost of $5,976.

2. Yes. (a) $19,460, (b) $21,183, (c) $26,522, (d) $152,885.

During 1983 were any contracts concluded by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Peterborough for work in Haliburton and Victoria counties under the Rural and Native Housing Program and, if so, what (a) is a

In each month of (a) 1981 (b) 1982 (c) 1983 how many persons were in receipt of the spouse's allowance provided under the Old Age Security Act and

May 14, 1984

how many were (i) male (ii) female and, in each case, what average amount was paid to the younger spouse where both spouses were alive and what average amount was paid to the surviving spouse where the older spouse had died?

Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):

(a) Number of Persons in Receipt of the Spouse's Allowance-1982

(i) (ii)* Average Amount paid to Spouse's Allowance Recipient to the younger spouse

Number of Spouse's Allowance Recipients where both spouse were alive where the older spouse had died **January 86,961 $198.15 $ N/AFebruary 87,041 197.67 N/AMarch 87,103 197.14 N/AApril 74,084 202.92 N/AMay 80,218 198.07 N/AJune 83,884 195.48 N/AJuly 85,351 202.87 N/AAugust 85,334 201.90 311.72September 86,120 200.95 315.30October 86,512 209.58 330.06November 86,863 208.56 332.40December 87,134 208.03 334.94*(i) (ii) Information to indicate the sex of spouse's allowance recipients is not available on a regular basis. However, information compiled for the month of June, 1982 only, indicates there were 7,382 male and 76,502 female recipients of the spouse's allowance. ** The average amount paid to spouse's allowance recipients where the older spouse had died is available only from August, 1982. (a) Number of Persons in Receipt of the Spouse's Allowance-1981 Number of Spouse's Allowance Recipients (i) (ii)* Average Amount paid to Spouse's Allowance Recipient to the younger spouse where both spouse were where the older spouse alive had died ** January 85,175 $180.26 $ N/AFebruary 85,192 179.23 N/AMarch 85,179 178.94 N/AApril 73,861 186.11 N/AMay 79,996 181.63 N/AJune 83,468 179.01 N/AJuly 84,548 186.10 N/AAugust 85,398 184.97 N/ASeptember 85,880 184.05 N/AOctober 86,632 192.25 N/ANovember 86,744 191.32 N/ADecember 86,694 190.72 N/A*(i) (ii) Information to indicate the sex of spouse's allowance recipients is not available on a regular basis. However, information compiled for the month of June, 1981 only, indicates there were 7,178 male and 76,290 female recipients of the spouse's allowance.

** The average amount paid to spouse's allowance recipients where the older spouse had died is available only from August, 1982.

Financial Administration Act

(a) Number of Persons in Receipt of the Spouse's Allowance-1983

(i) (ii)* Average Amount paid to Spouse's Allowance Recipient

Number of Spouse's Allowance Recipients to the younger spouse where both spouse were alive where the older spouse had diedJanuary 87,560 $212.84 $344.61February 87,537 212.62 347.35March 87,524 212.30 350.58April 76.531 213.91 311.74May 82,968 209.81 313.71June 85,646 208.12 318.28July 86,818 210.18 326.03August 87,336 209.59 329.60September 87.650 209.05 333.15October 87,948 213.36 342.01November 87.707 212.75 344.18December 87,638 212.42 346.66

*(i) (ii) Information to indicate the sex of spouse's allowance recipients is not available on a regular basis. However, information compiled for the month of June, 1983 only, indicates there were 7,451 male and 78,195 female recipients of the spouse's allowance.

Mr. Speaker:

The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.

Mr. Evans:

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Mr. Speaker:

Shall the remaining questions stand?

Agreed.

Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to speak on Bill C-24 dealing with Canada's subgovernment. I refer to it in that way because this is a secondary

May 14, 1984

Financial Administration Act

bureaucracy which in the last year cost Canada $4 billion. This subgovernment costs the taxpayers of this country millions and millions of dollars each year.

I would like to give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of the type of things that have happened that have not been addressed effectively by this Bill. This subgovernment is permitted to create such things as letters of comfort. Letters of comfort are guarantees by the federal Government to Crown corporations. We still have not had an accounting of all the letters of comfort that may be outstanding. This matter is hidden from the taxpayers and it is not done with integrity. It is a dishonest practice and it cheats the Canadian public. Letters of comfort represent only one of the items in this Bill that have not been specifically addressed which would stop this spending spree by Crown corporations.

What we object to particularly regarding these letters of comfort is that they have never been approved by the Parliament of Canada. They have never been approved by Members of this House who represent the taxpayer. This practice has to be stopped and a provision to stop it must be put into this Bill. In the Bill Class C-l and Class C-2 corporations are required to submit corporate plans. There is nothing in this Bill indicating the form or the content. Anything that is required can be done by regulation by the Minister. This does not give us the facts. This can be dealt with differently by each Minister in this House and in the other place.

We are given little enough information about Crown corporations in committee, and we will not be given any more as a result of this Bill. The Minister of State for Social Development in the other place appears before us in committee but never gives us the facts. He never tells us the whole story. Today I read in the newspaper that the President of CDIC says that Canadair will make a profit this year. A magician could not make a profit from that company, the way it is today. I do not know who Joel Bell is kidding. Perhaps he does not expect to keep his job. I do not know the reason for coming out with public statements which are misleading. They are not telling us all the facts. If they ever consider taking a portion of the debt of Canadair, they would be unable to show a profit forever.

The Bill suggests that C-l and C-2 corporations should prepare operating and capital budgets for a five-year period. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray), however, can exempt any corporation he wishes. It is similar to the National Energy Program-everything looked fine until we reached the point where the final decision was in the hands of the Minister. We had that changed so that it had to go to the courts. We cannot take everything to the courts. We must deal with problems in the House of Commons. If we are to create three-year and five-year operational plans, they must be for everyone. They must be based on a standard format, and there cannot be exemptions for some corporations over others.

One of my major concerns is that even with this Bill Crown corporations will not be accountable to the Parliament of

Canada. That is very serious. Legislation must include accountability to the House and to Canada.

Also the Bill sets forth the duties of the officers and directors, but they will not operate in the same manner as any private sector corporation in Canada. Cabinet appoints the chief executive officer. Boards of directors in private corporations are elected to appoint chief executive officers. Cabinet establishes remuneration. Boards of directors in private corporations establish the remunerations of chief executive officers. Cabinet appoints the auditors, so that it can pay off its friends in accounting firms across the country. In private corporations, auditors are approved and suggested by boards of directors.

Mr. Kaplan:

The shareholders.

Mir. Fennell: They are not facing the facts. I see the Hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) walking out of the Chamber and I hear him making a joking remark. That is terrible. Some of his legislation is terrible, some of his actions are terrible. It is just another example of lack of accountability to the House of Commons.

Mr. Kaplan:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Hon. Member has accused me of telling a joke. I was in fact simply reminding him that the auditors of a company are not picked by the directors but by the shareholders.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):

That is not a question of privilege.

Mr. Fennell:

He may say that it is the shareholders, but it is the board of directors that recommends the auditors. Then a shareholder stands and makes a recommendation. If it is the shareholders, every person in Canada should have the option of appointing an auditor and should have a voice as to who is on the board of directors, not just the Prime Minister of the country nor the Cabinet of Canada. It is attitudes like that which destroy the country. Those attitudes have hurt the country and destroyed the economy of Canada.

Furthermore, the Cabinet can direct the board of directors to pass certain by-laws. That is unheard of. It would be the same as shareholders directing the board of directors to pass certain by-laws. I have seen the types of by-laws passed in the House. I would not trust one. The board of directors would have to be awfully good friends of the Liberal Government to be able to endorse any by-laws recommended by that Government.

Our recommendation is that the board of directors should be totally independent of government. They should be appointed on their qualifications, not on their ideologies. This has to be changed.

They talk about comprehensive audits, but they can be modified by Cabinet. That is wrong. The Bill will not stop the proliferation of Crown corporations. They can set up a thousand subsidiaries. Why do they not look at Crown corporations on a joint venture basis? If we get the private sector involved with an entrepreneurial spirit and management skills, we will make them work.

May 14, 1984

Crown corporations are continually directed by public servants. A senior associate deputy minister of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion worked in Montreal for a number of years. He did not have the faintest idea of how a corporation operates or works for profit. The whole proliferation of Crown corporations has allowed spending by the Liberal Government on behalf of taxpayers, for which they will have to pay.

I realize that 10 minutes is a very short time, but I will conclude my brief speech by saying that we will put forth many amendments in committee. We will remove the smoke and mirrors in this Bill. We will recommend directors, not an advisory board but a pure board of directors. We will show that accountability is a prime concern of this Party.