Debates of Nov. 19th, 2001

Canadian Commercial Corporation Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, Foreign Affairs.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill. Although it seems fairly innocuous there are some questions that will be raised in committee and should be raised here, similar to the questions we recently raised with respect to the bill concerning the Export Development Corporation, again referring to the comments by the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas about the total lack of environmental standards and the standard for human rights being absent. There are no requirements for these issues that are so important in our country and should be important in other countries as well. We will be raising those questions.

As the hon. member and previous speakers have mentioned, the Canadian Commercial Corporation is almost invisible. Very few people know about it. The fact of the matter is that in the last year it has helped almost 2,000 small and medium sized businesses do business with other countries. It has 90 employees and operates with a fairly small base of capital, about $25 million.

The amendments proposed seem to be very reasonable, but like it is with so many bills I often wonder what precipitated these amendments. Why suddenly are they required after 55 years of having the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act in place? Why do we have these changes?

Perhaps the very distinguished parliamentary secretary could answer these questions for me by explaining whether it was a cash crunch that the corporation recently experienced that caused these changes to the act. Was it that the United States could not, did not or chose not to pay? Were there complaints from the exporters that generated these changes to the act? Or was it Treasury Board? Does it want to divest itself of the responsibility for supplying the capital? Does it want to divest it to the private sector? Or was it the auditor general's report, which was extremely critical of crown corporations and castigated the government for mismanagement and poor governance in every way?

I will in fact refer to the report, if I may, and report some of the comments made by the auditor general with respect to crown corporations. Recently I was involved with the Department of Transport's auditor's report and I thought it was really bad. I thought it was something any government would be ashamed of, but I think this report may be even worse. I will read to members some highlights from the report with respect to the auditor general's criticisms about crown corporations, which is what we are talking about here today, and about changes to the government's outlook on crown corporations. I will read some quotes that I have highlighted.

The report states:

Crown corporations...have more autonomy to manage than most other government entities—

They are more powerful than governments in many cases.

Many chairs and CEOs are not satisfied with the mix of skills and capabilities of their boards. They do not like their boards. Why? Who appoints the boards? The government appoints the boards. The chairs and the presidents do not even like them. They say they are not capable. There are “gaps in skills and capabilities” that “undermine the board's effectiveness”, says the report. Another comment states:

Only 34 percent of Crown corporations have completed profiles outlining their requirements for director skills and capabilities.

Imagine: 34% define the job and the rest take the appointments of the government.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

The auditor general said this?

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

This is from the auditor general's report. It states:

There is a need for better director training...Appointment decisions are not timely. In one Crown corporation 80 percent of the directors have continued in expired positions for over a year, and the chair position is vacant.

There is a board that continued with expired positions and no chair. Again it is a sign of lack of governance. The report continues as follows:

Chair appointments [are] often made with limited board consultation.

Each crown corporation has an audit committee. The report goes into the effectiveness of the audit committees. It states:

Half of the audit committees we examined were considered ineffective or only marginally effective...only one followed most of the best practices and was performing effectively;—

That was one out of 13 crown corporations. The report states:

The deficiencies in corporate plans undermine Crown corporation accountability...Many Crown corporations receive little or no feedback on their corporate plans from their responsible minister.

In fact there is supposed to be a direct correlation and a direct reporting back and forth. It goes on and on, stating that further improvement is needed in some important areas of crown corporation management, like strategic and corporate planning, that is, the basics, and the measurement and reporting of performance. Boards lack essential skills and capabilities that are required to effectively carry out their role. The government needs to meaningfully involve boards in their own renewal.

The report states that the auditors found “deficiencies” in many government approved corporate plans and “a limited capacity” in government to challenge those plans as a basis for their approval.

I could go on because the report is full of this. I just selected some highlights.

We have some amendments to the bill which we will propose in committee. We will focus on the governance issues as the auditor general did.

The bill proposes to separate the positions of chair of the board of directors and president of the Canadian Commercial Corporation. That makes sense. It should have been done a long time ago. We would like to add some requirements and will be proposing amendments at committee.

First, we would like to see a requirement that a majority of the board members has expertise relevant to the business of the corporation. It makes sense. It probably will not happen because it makes sense. However, it makes sense and we think the board members should know something about what they are talking about. They should have some experience and knowledge of the board of which they are a member. Second, we suggest that we should reduce the number of board members given that the chairperson is an added position. By adding a new chair, we should take one member off the board.

Third, we will ask for the requirement of the appointment of a president and chair to follow up consultations with the board. This will ensure that the board's directions are followed, which is not currently the case, as related in the auditor general's report. Fourth, we think that we should strike the clause that would allow the borrowing capacity of the corporation to be increased by a supply bill. We will be addressing all these issues when the bill gets to committee.

Again, this is an important crown corporation. It works with the EDC and the Business Development Corporation to help our small and medium size companies export and do business with governments in 30 countries around the world. We support the institution, but we want some changes made in the governance of the institution and in the process.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on second reading of Bill C-41. I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine.

Before speaking to CCC and Bill C-41 I wish to join others in congratulating the Minister for International Trade on his great success and the great success of the WTO at Doha, Qatar. I welcome the minister back from what was a very tiring schedule but a very successful ministerial meeting.

We see the launch of a new round of trade talks which is critically important, particularly in light of the tragedy of September 11 and the economic slowdown that so much of the world including Canada finds itself caught up in.

The Minister for International Trade showed great leadership in Doha. He was one of six facilitators who helped to cobble together the agreement, which meant many long days and evenings of work.

The Minister for International Trade is an indefatigable worker. He does not stop when it comes to pursuing a goal that he knows is very worth while. I congratulate him on his great work. It means hope for Canadian farmers. They may eventually, hopefully sooner rather than later, see a level playing field as we look at the issue of subsidies.

It means greater hope for the less developed nations of the world that stand to gain so much. Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the UN, said that the best thing we could do for the less developed nations of the world was to globalize and liberalize trade and to bring down barriers, which would allow them to raise themselves out of poverty.

I look forward with great anticipation as does most of the world to the Doha development agenda proceeding over the next several years. I repeat the great pride I have in congratulating the Minister for International Trade on his leadership and the great part he played and will continue to play in this important matter.

I would like to lay out the historical CCC background in light of some of the comments made by opposition colleagues. The CCC successfully met specialized international contracting and service delivery needs on behalf of Canadian exporters for more than 50 years. The corporation has shown its value to Canada in times of both war and peace.

The corporation has served Canadian interests very well ever since it was first set up by the Government of Canada in 1946 to help with international rebuilding efforts following World War II.

Today we are thinking about the fight against terrorism and the need for Canada to play a full role in supporting that campaign. CCC is playing a key role on behalf of Canada as we respond to the increased demand for the goods and services needed to win the fight against terrorism.

However CCC is not just about supplying war material. Its origins were humanitarian and it has a growing reputation today for its success in negotiating contracts to supply the non-defence procurement needs of the governments of other countries.

In 1946 the corporation's task was to facilitate the participation of Canadian companies in the international rebuilding effort, the so-called Marshall plan, that was necessary and highly successful in rebuilding the economies of Europe and re-establishing international economic prosperity after the enormous devastation of World War II.

It was during that time of international rebuilding that CCC began to develop a special expertise in public sector procurement including for the military. The corporation first worked with Canada's Department of National Defence to meet Canadian procurement needs. CCC became a key link between Canadian suppliers and the U.S. military and other foreign buyers of Canadian products during the Korean conflict in the early 1950s.

A few years later, with the signing of the Canada-U.S. defence production sharing agreement in 1956, CCC became the official agency through which U.S. Department of Defense contracts were processed for the supply of Canadian goods and services to meet U.S. defence requirements. This special mandate to manage Canada's participation in the United States defence market provided CCC with a very unique capacity to act on behalf of Canadian suppliers to meet specialized procurement needs.

General Motors Defense Canada is located in my riding of London--Fanshawe. It repeatedly tells me how necessary CCC is to the success of its contracts. Some 80% of its business is in export sales. It is lavish in its praise of CCC and the necessary role it plays in helping it secure these important markets and keeping thousands of Canadians in my riding and across the country working at good, well paying jobs. General Motors would want me to make that point because it repeatedly makes it to me.

CCC created the base for the corporation to broaden its business scope and to use its expertise in public procurement to seek new markets for Canadian suppliers outside the traditional defence and aerospace markets. Today almost 30% of CCC's new business is in areas outside the traditional defence and aerospace markets. The corporation is working with an ever expanding range of clients to promote a broad range of Canadian capabilities in high technology, environmental sectors, transportation and consumer goods to public sector buyers all over the world.

CCC supports Canadian exporters in the following ways. First, it uses its special status as a prime contractor to the United States department of defence. One of our colleagues in the New Democratic Party alluded to this point. We will have an opportunity to explain more fully for colleagues the special nature of this relationship when we analyze the bill and debate it in committee.

Second, it facilitates access to international public procurement contracts for Canadian companies. Third, it provides a guarantee of contract performance to public sector buyers around the world on behalf of Canadian exporters. I alluded earlier to how critically important that is to firms like General Motors and many others. Fourth, it facilitates access to bank financing for Canadian companies that need working capital to finance export contracts.

These are four critically important ways that CCC supports Canadian firms hoping to export in a pretty competitive market. We need only reflect that some 43% of our GDP is directly tied to exports in goods and services to understand how important the work of CCC is to the healthy economy we are determined to see continue.

The availability of these unique services under one crown corporation roof provides Canadian exporters with an equally unique set of advantages in international markets. Last year CCC facilitated some $1.3 billion in export business on behalf of Canadian businesses, 70% of which were small and medium size businesses.

Over the years CCC signed export contracts on behalf of thousands of Canadian companies. The corporation facilitated export sales of over $30 billion to buyers in more than 100 countries. These export contracts created or maintained employment in many Canadian communities from coast to coast.

I do not believe the bill presents contentious changes. It presents necessary, common sense improvements. I noted with interest the remarks of colleagues opposite, particularly the member from the Progressive Conservative Party who made such positive points. We look forward to working with opposition members in committee to help make sure we have a strong bill that will make an even better CCC.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the parliamentary secretary for providing us with such valuable information but he did not answer the questions I asked him previously.

I asked him what precipitated the bill and why it was here. In the meantime I had a call from one of my constituents and she is nervous. Nellie wants to know why 73% of the operating costs of the CCC is covered by parliamentary appropriations. Is it the plan to reduce that through changes to the act so that more of the fees and operating costs are recovered from the exporters and the users? Could the hon. parliamentary secretary help with that so that my constituent Nellie might not be so nervous?

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to help my colleague assure his constituent Nellie that things are pretty rosy all in all. I would like to specifically answer what precipitated the changes. As my colleague knows, and I think he has a couple of years of wisdom on me, we live in a changing world. The situation that we face internationally in the export market is much more competitive.

These are necessary changes to update the CCC. It allows for the separation of two positions which, as the minister said in his speech earlier today, is normal corporate practice and really should have been done before, I suppose. The government wants to make that improvement.

The member spoke about funds and so on. This would give the CCC the opportunity to charge for its services and make it more in keeping with an approach that is necessary and more productive in the new world in which we are living.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing surprises me today. We finally had an opportunity to do something in this bill. Even though the changes are minor, one thing is important, and we saw it with the EDC: we have an image to project to the world, and that goes for Quebecers as well as for Canadians.

It is essential to do an environmental assessment. We have environmental laws that enable us to assess the problem, but these laws are not applied in Canada and not even in Quebec.

In this bill, we had an opportunity to do the opposite of what we did with the EDC. For the CCC, why not apply the laws that exist in Canada? We go to other countries and we do not even apply our laws. What image can these other countries have of us in these circumstances?

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is an issue of extraterritoriality here which is just common sense. It comes into play and the member must be aware of that. If he is not, I invite him to come to committee where we can elucidate the facts for him and perhaps educate him on that point. I know he is not a member of the committee but we would welcome his attendance anyway.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-41, because I have companies in my riding that have made use of the services of the Canadian Commercial Corporation.

Over the past 50 years, the Canadian Commercial Corporation has built up a solid record of achievement and has served Canada considerably both at home and abroad.

As Canada's intermediary in sales in public markets in other countries, the CCC provides a unique contracting and export sales service that has given Canadians a solid reputation as a reliable suppliers in the context of large scale sales to foreign governments.

Over the years, the CCC has developed contracts with foreign buyers for the sale of goods and services worth over $30 billion. These export sales have not only enabled thousands of Canadian companies, large and small, some of which are in my riding, to expand their sales, but have also helped promote high quality jobs for thousands of Canadians from British Columbia to Newfoundland and Labrador, including Quebec, which is part of Canada. These high quality jobs for tens of thousands of Canadians have been created, as I have just said, in communities across the country.

Since its inception in 1946, the CCC has developed unique expertise in the sale of Canadian goods and services in international government markets. The corporation is known especially for its role in defence and aviation orders of other governments, especially the U.S. Department of Defense, its biggest customer.

What is important to note is that today the CCC is much more than a defence specialist. In recent years, it has acquired considerable expertise in sectors of public markets that have nothing to do with defence.

The CCC is currently carrying 30% of its activities in the information technology and communications sectors, in environmental and transportation services, just to name a few. These non military sectors of foreign public markets offer great opportunities.

The CCC is now targeting foreign markets and sectors that offer potential and are of strategic importance to Canada. Besides traditional sectors such as defence and aviation, as well as the new priority sectors of information technology and communications, environmental and transportation technologies, the CCC is also focusing on oil and gas development, mining equipment, as well as housing and building.

As an organization supporting exports, the CCC helps Canadian exporters to research and get contracts through the following services: negotiation of sales and contracts, access to pre-shipment export financing by business sources and contract performance guarantee to foreign buyers.

In recent years, the CCC has established many contacts and has acquired a wide experience in foreign government supply markets. When the CCC acts as the main contractor in international markets, Canadian companies, as subcontractors, benefit from its expertise. The CCC provides Canadian exporters advice on international contracting, help during negotiations and support in dispute settlements.

Quite often, buyers from foreign governments want a contract performance guarantee that may be difficult to provide, particularly for SMEs.

This is very important, because the CCC counts the bulk of small and medium businesses among its clients. As we know, these are what keeps Canada, Canada's economy, rolling, and they are playing an increasingly large role in international markets.

In addition to the credibility offered by the CCC to foreign buyers, the corporation can also provide the financial guarantees demanded by government purchasers, thus conferring upon Canadian suppliers an advantage over the competition on the international level.

For example, under the progress payment program, small and medium businesses may draw against lines of credit of up to $2 million in connection with a project, at a preferential rate of interest.

According to surveys of CCC client companies, these attach a great deal of value to the services they receive. The corporation has determined that a value could be set for invoicing these services, based on the value to clients.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade has said, the corporation has already put into place a cost-recovery mechanism for certain of its services for the expansion of international markets.

The method proposed in this bill would be based on this experiment and would set a fee schedule reflecting a fair balance between applied costs and value received.

Even if approximately 70% of the corporation's clients are small and medium businesses, the new fee schedule will allow it to expand its clientele of such businesses with complete independence.

This bill will enhance the tools and trading flexibility the CCC requires, and will enable it to work effectively on behalf of Canadian exporters in foreign public markets.

The bill enables the corporation to set reasonable charges for its services, to become more self-sufficient and to expand its client base. Thus the CCC will be in a position to support higher levels of export by Canadian corporations, which will have the effect of increasing employment and adding to the wealth these corporations provide to Canadians.

I might cite the examples of three companies, clients of the CCC, that are located in my riding and have created jobs within that riding.

The first one is Anachemia Canada Inc. which is located in Lachine, Quebec. This company provides hazardous waste management and recycling services. It came into contact with the CCC a number of years ago through an original contract with CIDA. Since then Anachemia has done business through CCC in the United States, Europe and Australia. This is a success story. It is a success story for the company, the client, and also a success story for CCC and for Canada.

Another company is Canada Allied Diesel or better known as CAD, which is also in Lachine and is an example of CCC's expansion into new areas like transportation. CAD works on refurbishing railway cars and is currently working with CCC on a CIDA project with the Tanzanian Railway Corporation.

The last company in my riding that I would like to mention is Invensys Performance Solution. CCC is supporting Invensys on a $9.5 million U.S. contract for an airport security and safety program in Bolivia.

Those are examples of how CCC is a success and how the amendments in the bill will improve its efficacy and its efficiency.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member who just spoke. It was her final comment that particularly intrigued me because she implied that companies in her riding had only created jobs because of the existence of the CCC. I would argue that this does not necessarily follow.

Many studies have shown that whenever the government intervenes in the private sector it tends to transfer jobs from one place to another. It could well be that the CCC, by showing favouritism toward one company and helping it ahead of others, in other words unfair competition, simply transfers jobs from the riding of somebody else to hers. On balance, we have to ask some questions about whether the CCC is actually contributing to job creation or is simply just another bureaucracy set up for very little value at all.

It is with those comments in mind that I want to pose a few questions about the existence of the CCC and its mandate.

CCC stands for the Canadian Commercial Corporation, the mandate for which was established under the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act of 1946. Based on the paperwork that was provided to me by the CCC, its original mandate was to assist in the development of trade between Canada and other nations.

The fact is that things were a lot different in 1946. There were no free trade agreements. It was really difficult to trade between nations because there were all sorts of tariff barriers in place. Canada was not in the global type of economy that it is in today. I would definitely question whether the original mandate of the CCC is appropriate today. It is not, which is probably why it has such a very small role in the overall scheme of the economy.

The Canadian Commercial Corporation has borrowings of $10 million a year and the amount of trade that goes through it is very small compared to the total gross national product. Instead of granting the corporation another $80 million in borrowing power, we should be questioning whether it is necessary to have the corporation in the first place.

In its own paperwork provided to me, the CCC gives an example of one of the companies that has been supported by it. It is a company located in Nanaimo, B.C. called Eclipse Technologies. The CCC provided it with access to working capital on two occasions to help it sell retractable screen doors and windows to a U.S. private company. The two contracts were worth $406,000 U.S.

What business does a government agency or crown corporation have in helping sell retractable screen doors and windows? I cannot think of any good reason why any company should ask the government to help it do that. In fact, Eclipse Technologies should be embarrassed asking the government for help. There are plenty of other companies in North America selling retractable screen doors. I have some in my house that were not made by this company.

All the government did by setting up CCC and having CCC intervene on this company's behalf was pick winners and losers. It created a situation where a government agency unfairly helped a company at the expense of others.

Whenever I see these types of organizations like the CCC, it makes me think of New Zealand where I am from originally. In 1993 New Zealand hit the wall and basically went bankrupt. One thing the government tried to do was set its finances on a general accounting principles basis. The government first looked at the extent of loan guarantees that had been given by it to numerous companies. When all the loan guarantees were added up, it was discovered that the government of New Zealand had guaranteed more than the total worth of the country because loan guarantees were so easy to give. A piece of paper is written up and suddenly a company has a loan guarantee from the government and the taxpayers.

If we look at these things on a general accounting principles basis, we find that a lot of them are risks for the taxpayer. We see examples over and over again of how taxpayers have been left holding the bag for all sorts of grants and contributions given particularly by the government side, for example in the Prime Minister's own riding. I really cannot see that there is a place for organizations like the CCC.

Some people would argue that it is essential to have experience in writing contracts to a country like Bolivia or some other country where people want to sell retractable door screens but cannot make headway. They need someone experienced to help them with it. I would argue that they should go ahead and make the best contract they can on a purely commercial basis. If they find that the Bolivian government does not live up to the contract it signed to pay for the screen doors, then they should approach the Government of Canada.

Let us think outside the box for a minute. Instead of having a whole agency like the CCC set up, let us think about our international foreign aid. If we are sending money every year to a place like Bolivia and there are outstanding accounts to companies from Canada that have done business with Bolivia, maybe we should be tying in the payment of accounts to Canadian companies with our foreign aid instead of having a separate Canadian Commercial Corporation labouring away as the result of a bill passed in 1946 for a wholly different set of commercial operations.

The operation of the Canadian Commercial Corporation could most likely be compared to modern day factoring. In the private sector there are companies that do factoring. If I had a printing job done at a local printer and the printing company sent me the bill for the services, instead of paying the printer I would pay a different corporation which already has paid the printer minus a discount. The factoring company makes its living out of paying the printer, having the discount on the bill, and I pay the factoring company.That is really the way the CCC is set up. It guarantees payment of accounts to its clients within 30 days.

My colleague from Vancouver Island North mentioned that this is unfair because there are suppliers here in Canada supplying our own government that do not get paid in 30 days. When I was in the private sector prior to being a member of parliament I did business with the Government of Canada. I sold it telex machines and equipment. It was very rare indeed for me to be paid in 30 days. Usually it was more than 60 and sometimes 90 days. Here again is an example of unfair rules where some groups of the private sector will get treated a different way from other groups simply because they work through the CCC.

I would also argue that there is a role for our embassies abroad in making sure that people get put in touch with the right people to get contracts in place. If we use the Bolivian example again for want of a better country to choose, we have trade representatives at the embassy in Bolivia.

When I was in the telex business we used to send and receive telexes from many importers and exporters. They would ask us how to do trade in Hong Kong or how to make contact with a supplier in Thailand. We would often refer them to the embassy because that is where the trade representatives were and they knew the local contacts for those types of industries.

I would argue again that maybe there is no need for the CCC. I have difficulty believing there would be enough expertise in the CCC compared with the local trade representatives on the ground in the country concerned. I see the member opposite shaking his head so I will defer to his knowledge of the situation. If he feels that is not the case, I will accept that at face value but the fact still remains that we should be asking these questions. They are valid questions and need to be answered.

I understand that 54% of the CCC's mandate is tied into the U.S. Department of Defense procurement regulations. That has been in place for a long time and I understand that.

I would ask the government again to start thinking outside the box. We now live in a free trade environment, a global trading environment. Is it not time to start thinking more in terms of trying to get these things into a free trade agreement? Around the world most countries, maybe all of them, are trying to keep things like defence outside of those global agreements. If we are truly serious about moving in the direction of free trade, we should be pushing those areas.

A big area of commerce for the country is to be able to do business with the U.S. Department of Defense. Again this was set up such a long time ago that surely the U.S. Department of Defense and the United States government would be open to discussion about whether we really need these types of agencies set up purely to facilitate trade that has been ongoing now for 50 years.

Access to working capital is also one of the functions of the CCC. My goodness, as if there are not enough sources of working capital out there already. There are lists and lists on the Internet and in the yellow pages of companies that specialize in working capital. There are many options open to private companies.

I have come from the private sector. When I was developing my company, sure it was tough to get money from a bank. Whenever we had a new idea, companies were not willing to back us. When the telex industry first became deregulated and the banks had never seen this before, they were not willing to advance me money for that. Once I was successful, making money, suddenly they wanted to lend me the money I did not need.

I certainly understand the difficulties that can occur in business. But I still do not believe that it is the role of a government agency or a government funded agency like this crown corporation to give some companies unfair advantage over others just because they happen to know that they can apply to a corporation like this.

On balance, we are probably going to vote in favour of the bill. I just felt that it was healthy to raise a few questions about what goes on at the organization and the types of companies that it services.

Even though we have been given examples from Nanaimo, and we have had one or two from the other member's riding, I cannot help thinking that a lot of the aid perhaps goes to huge companies like Bombardier which make such a huge amount of profit. They get all manner of government moneys dumped into them already. They should really be doing their own due diligence. They should be paying for their own legal aid and their own help and should not be getting paid in 30 days.

I bet the suppliers to Bombardier do not get paid in 30 days. I would be willing to bet that Bombardier often does not pay some of its suppliers for much longer periods of time, 60 or 90 days. If it is one of the clients, perhaps it could take a look at that situation as well.

That pretty much sums up the questions I would have. As I said, on balance, we are probably going to be pretty much speaking in favour of the bill. But it does not hurt to raise these questions, particularly the discrepancies in things like the paying of suppliers, the fact that if I am a supplier to the Canadian government it is highly unlikely I will be paid in 30 days but if I am supplying to the Bolivian government through the CCC, I will get paid in 30 days. It is simply unfair.

I talked about the New Zealand case. An assessment of all of the loan guarantees and factoring the New Zealand government did in 1993 exposed the fact that the government had guaranteed more than the total worth of the country. I often wonder if we did that exercise in Canada, if we added up all the loan guarantees and the non-repayable loans, whether we would have guaranteed more than the value of Canada itself.

A better job would have been to reassess the whole worth of the Canadian Commercial Corporation and to have looked at the possibility of doing away with it completely.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member for North Vancouver wanted to offer some constructive suggestions but I am afraid he missed the point. Canadian Commercial Corporation serves a very useful purpose in Canada's economy. I will give a specific example.

There is a company in my riding by the name of Soheil Mosun Limited. It is a small company that is noted for its excellence in what is called architectural decorative work. It bid on a project in the United States through a general contractor. It was a subcontractor. It was successful but it had to come up with a performance bond that was quite elaborate. It went to the private marketplace and could not find the performance bonding requirements that it needed. It had discussions with the Export Development Corporation. Finally, the Canadian Commercial Corporation provided the performance bond.

This company has gone from strength to strength to strength. It is now an international player. It has developed a credibility in the U.S. marketplace. It has been asked to bid on projects throughout the United States. Now one of its challenges is working capital, to make sure it has the working capital to keep pace with the growth in its business. It brought in some expertise.

The company is growing from strength to strength. It is a small company, a father and two sons. They have grown this business as a result of the support of the Canadian Commercial Corporation into an amazingly dynamic and successful business. It is creating jobs in my riding of Etobicoke North. Again the CCC helped create another company with an amazing reputation as a world leader in this particular niche.

Perhaps the experience of the hon. member for North Vancouver is somewhat different. Or maybe he just is not aware of the needs in that community and the way the Canadian Commercial Corporation can fill the very important gaps that the private sector for whatever reason is not able to fill. That is the very purpose and the reason we have these crown corporations, to move into those areas where the markets cannot meet the demand.

Would the member reflect on those comments, check his notes about companies in his riding and perhaps reconsider his views on this very important piece of legislation?

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned during my earlier intervention, I was in the private sector as well. I was very successful in telecommunications. There were times when I did not get a sale of certain ones I had applied for. I would put in for tenders and I lost out. That is the way life goes in the private sector; sometimes we just do not get the sale we want. In the long term that did not prevent my company from going on to become successful. What we do is move on to the next sale. If we are good we will make another sale. We do not need somebody, especially taxpayers, to come along and guarantee a bond for us.

I will not argue with the fact that the member has a very successful company in his riding. I would still say that on balance the government picks losers more often than it picks winners. There are long lists of companies that can be trotted out in this House and are trotted out. In the Prime Minister’s riding money is poured into companies, taxpayers’ money, other people’s money, and they still go under. I would question the wisdom of any government guaranteeing the performance of private companies when the private sector will not do it.

Frankly, although members can come up with individual successes, I still think the principle of taxpayer assistance to the private sector in that way is wrong. I have been there. It is not as if I am arguing from a position of no knowledge. I have been there. I lost government contracts and opportunities in the United States, in Seattle, at the time when I was in business. I did not weep, cry and go to the government departments to give me money so that I could do it. I just went on to the next sale and built my company in another way.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for North Vancouver was describing it as though it is good enough to fail.

There are so many countries around the world that provide this kind of support because the risk is too great in the market or because of other compensating factors the governments support local companies.

I hope that the companies in his riding of North Vancouver were not listening. I am sure that to them failure is not good enough and “Oh, well, too bad” is not good enough. It is not good enough for the companies in my riding and I am sure it is not good enough for the companies in his either.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am so glad the member brought that up because the companies in my riding know exactly where I stand on their behalf and they do not believe in corporate welfare.

I come from an upper middle class business oriented riding and the business community does not believe in corporate welfare. That does not prevent them from taking it from time to time because it is out there and it is available. However the principle is they do not believe in it and they want me to voice that here. They would be completely happy if it was stopped for every company in this country.

When the members stand up over there and think for some reason we will be castigated or attacked in our ridings for taking these positions, they are wrong. Maybe they should show some courage and do it in their ridings. They would be surprised at how the business community would come out behind them and say that they agreed with them, that it had to stop and that it was the money of other people. The reason our taxes are so high is because the government is taking the money and giving it to other people.

With the programs in my riding, every year grants are given perhaps to one hardware store over another or one veterinary clinic over another. It is unfair intervention in the private marketplace. It has to stop.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The question is on Bill C-41 at second reading. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen: