Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):

Don't be silly.

Mr. Angus:

It took a New Democratic Member of Parliament, who had the courage for years to plant the seeds about that issue and was able to get legislation passed in this House, and in the other House, to ban smoking on domestic flights. That is what it took. It was not the Government that moved; it was a New Democratic Member that moved.

Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):

Don't be silly.

Mr. Angus:

Now that I have their attention, let me go into the suggestions that my colleagues have put forward in terms of changes to the Bill, suggestions which unfortunately were not accepted by this House, by this Government in particular, which would have made what we think is a very bad Bill, a very flawed Bill, a little bit better, at least in providing some protection to the taxpayers.

The one that I was most interested in was the limiting of foreign ownership in Air Canada. The Bill currently follows international trends or conditions that maximize by 25 per cent the ownership of any airline in Canada. That is similar to a provision in the United States.

Air Canada

I gather that during committee hearings the committee was warned that the American Government is now moving to increase the allowable percentage and, because of the trade deal, which calls for harmonization between our two countries, that in fact Canada would have to follow suit. So if the Americans go to 40 per cent ownership allowable for foreigners, Canada would have to do the same thing. It would apply directly to Air Canada.

We tried to change that. We were worried that we might have a situation where one of our two airlines, whether it is Canadian or Air Canada, becomes acquired in large part by an American carrier and we develop into a hub and spoke system that is based not in our Canadian cities, where the hubs are, but in some of the major U.S. cities, and we find Canadians having to travel south to Minneapolis or Washington or New York before they could move back into Canada to another point. This is something that Sir John A. Macdonald made sure would not happen to the rail system when he arranged for the financing and development of the CPR to keep this country together. He was concerned about the north-south movement when what he really wanted was an east-west movement to keep this country whole. I would encourage his descendants in the Tory Party to rethink perhaps what they are doing in that regard.

The other amendment was to try to put into fact what the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), in tabling the Bill, suggested was there, and that is to limit the actual share offering. As we know, the legislation is open-ended. It could allow-and in fact the Minister has stated that at some point it will allow-100 per cent of Air Canada's shares to be sold to the private sector, to private individuals.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Angus:

I hear "hear, hear". I am not surprised that some of the Conservative government Members want to see the whole airline sold. Given the way the legislation has been written and the directive given by the Government to Air Canada to vote its majority 55 per cent share with whatever the wishes of that minority group are, maybe it is just as well that they went the whole route. It is a half-baked pie that we have here. We tried to put in the legislation the restriction that only 45 per cent of the shares be offered to the public.

Let me deal with the philosophical aspect of this matter. Why do New Democrats oppose the sale of this Crown corporation? Is it because we like to own things as governments? Some people think that that is how we operate. Or is it because there is a need in a country like Canada to give the elected representatives of the people a chance to influence trade and travel patterns within the country? Yes, we have regulations that provide some level of control on transportation companies, airlines, railway and trucking companies. But if you give up the other element in the equation that government policy initiatives be directed through a Crown corporation to

July 14, 1988

Air Canada

provide services to the far North or to ensure there is a cross subsidization between the very lucrative Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto triangle and some of the smaller outlying region, there is a need to say to the Board of Directors of Air Canada that the bottom line cannot be their only consideration. Service has to be there not only to the major centres, to which many business people travel, but also to the Thunder Bays, the Sault Ste. Maries, the Sudburys of Ontario and elsewhere. The test of public convenience and necessity, which was there prior to deregulation, required an airline by regulation to provide a certain level of service. Perhaps it is a service beyond the economic capabilities of the community. We have seen in northwestern Ontario Dryden which has lost its jet service, a service it had for a number of years, a service very important to the economy of that part of northwestern Ontario.

Mr. Orlikow:

Brandon too.

Mr. Angus:

It was a symbol of being part of the mainstream. It is down to NorOntAir, Air Ontario and a Canadian partner, the very small lines. Dryden does not feel the same kind of attachment it had before. My colleague reminds me that Brandon used to be on a route connecting through Thunder Bay which provided jet service which has been taken away.

There are some economic impacts that go beyond whether or not a company makes a profit. While obviously we do not want to see government corporations losing money, we think it makes sense to force them to make it their mandate to provide those kinds of services. Through deregulation and privatization we have lost the tools we once had to ensure there is that kind of service.

There is another area we were concerned about. Under a policy direction, Air Canada has certain responsibilities with respect to the Official Languages Act to ensure the appropriate mix of our two official languages across the country. There is concern that as a private sector company there would not be the same pressure or controls. We want to ensure that the Commissioner of Official Languages is able to continue the monitoring process and what is still our national airline will provide service in both languages that we have come to accept as appropriate.

My Party and those we represent are concerned about privatization. We see it being done not for sound economic reasons, but more to satisfy a certain philosophical approach that is represented by the Conservative Party.

Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):

Which is sound.

Mr. Angus:

We have seen Air Canada allowed to operate more and more as a private sector company without the benefit of legislation. We have not as taxpayers had to provide any money to Air Canada for many, many years. It has been selfsufficient, which is the goal of any Crown corporation, as long as it continued to provide services. We know from the documents available that the share assets of Air Canada provided by the Government of Canada have not been drawn upon.

Money is available allowing Air Canada to refurbish its fleet. There are all sorts of exciting and innovative ways of acquiring equipment that are not capital intensive and could have been utilized to ensure that Air Canada was able to grow appropriately. Yes, it would have cost money, but it would have cost a lot less than eight or ten nuclear submarines.

It is important as a symbol that we have an airline that is ours, not some small group or an individual or two. Air Canada belongs to all of us, every taxpayer today, and those yet to be born. We are the owners. This great movement to privatize Air Canada is not giving it or selling it to the people, it is selling Air Canada to a select few, taking it out of the control of the many through their elected representatives and giving it to a small section of our population and to people outside of our country. I do not think that is right, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that is an appropriate policy direction for the Government of Canada to take. That is why I and my colleagues will be voting against this Bill as we did at second reading.

We attempted to make the changes in committee and at report stage to make the Bill a little better. None of the amendments were accepted, even though I think they were appropriate safeguards that even the government Members should have considered more seriously. I think, because changes were coming from the NDP, Tory Members say, "Whatever the NDP wants is wrong and we will ram the Bill through in any case". That is not the appropriate way to do things.

There are no guarantees for the workers, no collective agreement job security clause. The guarantee for maintenance bases is weak, and other employees such as ticket agents and aircrew are not included. Flight attendants, who traditionally have had a number of bases in Canada from which to work, are not protected. Air Canada is being privatized with an eye on the bottom line. Air Canada could easily say to those people who live in western and Atlantic Canada, "Sorry we are not making as much money this year as we would like to. We will have to centralize and you will have to locate in Toronto and Montreal. You will have to leave your home in Winnipeg or Vancouver because it is more cost efficient to have you coming out of the major hub". Then there is the possibility of greater and greater foreign control. You have a situation developing of a privately operated airport terminal in Toronto. What happens if the company involved in that becomes attached to one of the American companies? What are the ramifications?

It would be nice if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would phone us and tell us he has been elsewhere in his community, has spoken to the Governor General and will call an election so we can kill this Bill as well as the trade Bill. Then we can get rid of the Government that should not have been elected in the first place.

Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):

You are history.

July 14, 1988

Mr. Angus:

I am not history. I am here for a long time. I want to thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, in listening to my comments. I am sure there will be some interesting questions or comments from my colleagues across the way.

Mr. Hawkes:

Mr. Speaker, the doom and gloom, the spreading of fear, the attempt to make Canadians nervous about unreal situations is incredible. It goes on and on and it has no basis in knowledge and no basis in honesty.

The Hon. Member should know that to get an airline licence in Canada, a company must be Canadian-controlled. He is saying that all these foreigners will take over our airline. If he had read the Bill itself, the subject matter of this debate, he would know that those who are non-Canadians who own shares can never, no matter how many shares they own, control more than 25 per cent of Air Canada at any meeting and for any purpose. All of their shares have to be prorated in terms of voting power so that collectively they do not exceed 25 per cent. Seventy-five per cent of the votes, in perpetuity, remain in Canadian hands. That is what the Bill says.

How can the Hon. Member bring that bogyman out in this Chamber if he has read the Bill? I challenged the previous speaker to name a privatization that had led to job losses, and he came back with something called CN Route. I did not have time to respond.

CN Route was a subsidiary of a Crown corporation. The board of directors had to make a difficult decision: should it wind the company down and throw 3,000 people out on the street, or should it seek a buyer who can make it viable, who can provide work opportunities, instead of throwing 3,000 people out of work. That is what that was all about, it was about protecting Canadian jobs by finding a viable ownership to keep the company alive and healthy and to make it work.

Does this Hon. Member have any evidence of previous privatizations of this Government and this Parliament that have not led to better working conditions for employees and more employees, even hundreds more employees in the case of de Havilland, more customers, better service, better products and better situations for the free trade environment? That environment will produce hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians, and members of his Party keep filibustering it.

Every reputable economist in Canada, not the lackeys of a few labour union bosses, tells us that it is time to join the modern age. It is time to be productive. Canadians can and will compete, and given the opportunity of a market, there will be more jobs, there will be better jobs and there will be a higher standard of living for Canadians.

Canadians have watched this filibuster. They have seen the 19 dilatory motions occur in the month of June, 1988, and they

Air Canada

know about the half a million dollars a day it costs to operate this Chamber, which is going down the drain on the basis of this filibuster. The Opposition's popularity is dropping like a rock because they do not represent the aspirations of the Canadian people. They listen to half a dozen labour leaders, not labour union membership, of a few rich unions. Those labour union leaders drive Cadillacs and have a different view of the world.

It is time to get back to the grassroots and listen to the people on the street. They want a healthy Air Canada. They see an opportunity to participate in ownership. They see a healthier company down the road, and regarding this filibuster on this Bill, the nation would be better served if the debate would end and we could get on to other government business.

Mr. Angus:

Mr. Speaker, filibuster? Give me a break. We have had three speakers on this very important Bill. I would not call that a filibuster. Certainly I do not have the impression that we dragged out report stage last week. We certainly did not drag out second reading debate.

Let us face it. It was the Government that did a one-day wonder in committee. Is that consultation with the Canadian public to find out whether the Canadian public is in support of or against this legislation? Transport 2000 was not given an opportunity to appear, nor were other groups.

The Government knows that it cannot sell this to the Canadian people, so it wants to ram it through. It has forgotten about the tradition of this place that provides that matters of major consequence should have public and parliamentary review.

The Hon. Member talked about de Havilland. That was a company which the Government of Canada had to take over years ago. It had to pour millions into it, and as soon as it started to make a profit, the Tory logic told the Government to sell it so that someone else could get the gravy. That is incredible.

The Hon. Member goes on about the trade deal and all of these reputable economists who say how great we will do. Let me remind the Hon. Member that those studies were based on a 75-cent dollar. Where is that dollar now? Where are those jobs now? How can we turn over our country to an economic situation which has already been changed and over which we have no further control? Once again, the Government is not prepared to take the necessary steps to ensure that Canada can compete properly.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

I believe there is a point of order on the part of the Hon. Member for Leeds- Grenville (Mrs. Cossitt) to table a committee report, and I think there is unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville to do so.

July 14, 1988

Committee Reports

Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the legislative committee on Bill C-205, an Act to protect heritage railway stations, I have the honour to present Bill C-205 to the House with amendments. We had an opportunity to hear from all witnesses concerned who made a valid contribution to this Bill. Those interested were, of course, Heritage Canada, VIA Rail Canada, Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway.

Mr. Benjamin:

Mr. Speaker, on the same matter, I would like to tell the House that, on behalf of my Party, we are prepared to give unanimous consent tomorrow at any time for the conclusion of report stage and third reading of this very important piece of legislation which all Parties support.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

Is that so agreed?

Mr. MacLellan:

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly agreed to the tabling of the report.