1974-12-10

PRIVILEGE


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege resulting from an exchange yesterday in the Ontario legislature which only recently came to my attention. This exchange has serious implications for the proceedings in this House during the last few days and perhaps for later today. The exchange is as follows and began with a question by Stephen Lewis:
May I ask the Solicitor General, in your reported request to the federal government for a royal commission inquiry into the activities of the SIU, would it be possible for you to indicate to the legislature specifically on what grounds you are making the request, the documentation which you are including in your submission, indeed, could you table the submission on which you based the request.


Hon. George  Kerr@: Mr. Speaker, there is some, shall we say, exaggeration to the story that was reported in this morning's Sun.
We are not demanding a probe. There is no application to the federal government for a probe. What I said to the reporter actually was said last Tuesday evening and has been said over and over again in this House in respect to questions of the honourable members. The only new information really that I gave that reporter was the fact that we had correspondence from the Ministry of Justice received on Friday from the federal Minister of Justice requesting our reasons for a federal investigation or a federal inquiry and why we felt that the police forces under the Criminal Code cannot, in fact, conduct any necessary inquiry or investigation. I had indicated to that reporter that we would be replying to the Ministry of Justice this week. Really, as far as new information is concerned, I believe that the honourable member for High Park has indicated in his remarks in this House and the information that the police have, and all of which is available to the federal officials, is really the information in total.
Stephen Lewis: May I ask the Solicitor General, since you have now indicated publicly yourself that the inquiry makes good sense, could you, in fact, table the document, the letter . . . whatever it is that you sent to the federal Minister of Justice or Mr. Allmand so that we can see the formal basis on which you seek it.


Hon. George  Kerr@: Well Mr. Speaker, that will be a letter to the Minister of Justice. I believe the letter actually will be going from my Deputy Minister to his Deputy Minister and whether or not it should be tabled, I suppose, should to some extent depend on his opinion in that regard. But, I have no objection to tabling that letter . . .
At this point I am not going to move a motion, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to draw to the attention of the committee and of this House the content of this exchange I have just read, which suggests that members of the House have been basing some of their interventions in this House on misinformation, and apparently, and I believe, this process of misinformation was calculated.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: That is a total abuse of the rules. There is no question of privilege.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say to the minister through you that at no time have I based any interventions I have taken on this matter on any assumption that the Ontario government had asked for an investigation by the federal government. My understanding is that it is the view of the appropriate minister of the Ontario government that there ought to be an investigation, and that the subject matter is properly the subject matter for investigation by the federal government. I think the exchange in the Ontario legislature read by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) this afternoon confirms that. I just want to make it perfectly clear that I, at least, have not been operating under any misapprehension in that regard.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. minister gave me notice of his question of privilege and he has spoken to it. I do not think it is proper to have any more than one presentation on any one subject by one member no matter who he may be. If there are others who want to make a contribution to the point I will be glad to hear them now.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to ask the question I am hearing asked all around me. What is the question of privilege on which the minister has risen?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege as far as I am concerned arises from the fact that there has been constant reference in the House-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If there are no other members who wish to contribute I must say that I had the same question in my mind. The hon. minister has made his intervention, of which he gave the Chair notice. As is the custom, it is necessary to hear hon. members fully in the presentation of what they may believe to be a question of privilege, and generally to hear members opposite on somewhat of an equal time sharing basis in order that both viewpoints are represented.
I must say that on two counts I have no difficulty in coming to the decision that there does not, from any understanding I have of the rules of the House, appear to be a prima facie case of privilege. In any event, the minister did not follow his proposed question of privilege with a motion which would require the Chair to make a ruling, so I propose that we could move on with the business of the House.

December 10, 1974
Seafarers' International Union


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is an abuse of the privileges of the House.



REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Presenting Reports from Standing and Special committees:
November 7, 1974-Mr. McCleave (Joint Chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments):
That the Third Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Thursday, November 7, 1974, be concurred in.
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I seek the consent of the House to withdraw the first motion standing in my name, and in explanation I would say that I understand the House leaders will decide on the two hour period, perhaps later this week, or at least sometime soon, regarding the debate on the other motion standing in my name.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has two motions on the order paper standing in his name and seeks leave of the House to withdraw the first of those two. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, involving a matter of national interest and recent concern to this House. In view of the great emphasis placed on the activities of the SIU and the response of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), and in view of the statutory prohibitions in the Canada Shipping Act against hiring hall practices, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That the Minister of Labour direct his officials to make public records and correspondence relating to complaints received from seamen, and further that the Minister cause an investigation in regard to Kenneth McGuire who is a dispatcher at the SIU hall in Montreal, contrary to Article XIII of the SIU Constitution in that he does not have the required sea time and other qualifications.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion. It being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
(Mr. Speaker.)


MANPOWER
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43 which is both urgent and pressing. In view of documented revelations in today's press that the allocation of federal funds, under the Local Initiatives Program in 1972-73, was made by political rather than economic considerations in that Liberal ridings received nearly twice as much as opposition ridings, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House request that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration appear before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, to explain and reveal the reasons for the allocation of funds for each constituency in 1972-73 under LIP.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some reservations about the subject matter of this motion in respect of its conformity with Standing Order 43; first, because the subject has been raised previously on several occasions in the House and there have been questions and answers with regard to it. I cannot agree that an allusion to a newspaper article puts an element of immediacy or urgency upon something which has been before the House on several occasions in the past.
In addition, I can perhaps place before the House or more stringent requirement in that on this day or on days of this sort hon. members might want to bear in mind that it is somewhat surprising to me to see on an opposition day or on an allotted day-although this is a special day when all parties in the House have agreed upon the subject matter of debate which is of some importance in this House, that being conflict of interest-a motion presented under the provisions of Standing Order 43 which would frustrate this arrangement and perhaps switch the debate to something else. Perhaps I am putting an undue construction on that, but it may be something that hon. members might like to think about in the future.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with a matter whose importance requires immediate action on the part of the Canadian government.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That a special committee of the House be set up to study carefully the problem of the people who were expropriated at Sainte-Scholas-tique, whose payments have not been finalized, which situation has stirred their wrath and exasperation, and that said committee be required to report to this House by the end of 1974.


Mr. Speaker:: Once again, while recognizing that the matter is important and of continued interest to this
December 10, 1974

House, I feel that it totally lacks the element of urgency which is absolutely required by the provisions of Standing Order 43.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Roberts (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a petition to the House of Commons. It is a petition presented by the Beth Tzedec Congregation of Toronto. It is on a single slip of paper over 370 feet long, the length of a football field. It contains thousands of signatures. The petitioners indicate their solidarity for the state of Israel and request that the House of Commons support Israel by a resolution in the House and prevail upon Her Majesty's government to support the state of Israel at the United Nations.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister and it is with regard to the program of trying to achieve a consensus among the principal elements of our economy to which he referred in the Speech from the Throne, and apparently again discussed yesterday at the meeting of the ministers of finance and provincial treasurers. Can the Prime Minister tell us briefly about what the government is trying to seek a consensus. Is it trying to seek a consensus on guidelines with respect to wages, salaries or profits?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Beyond what the Minister of Finance and myself have said on this on other occasions, I would just inform the House that the Minister of Finance has been talking about this at the meetings taking place yesterday and today, that he will be reporting to cabinet on Thursday, and that I expect that the series of consultations which are going forward would be made known to the House in a fairly short time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That would be fine if it were Alice in Wonderland, but we are here in parliament. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can indicate what it is on which the Minister of Finance is trying to seek a consensus. Is that an improper question to direct to the head of the government who has been talking around this subject for several months now? Can the Prime Minister indicate to us very briefly whether the consensus being sought is a consensus on guidelines?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The consensus being sought is one on achieving ways of slowing down the rate of inflation and, I hope, bringing it down to a level which will cause the government less concern. That is the general subject of the consultations. The object of meetings of the various groups differs according to the groups that are meeting. Various ministers will be meeting various groups and discussing different aspects of inflation with them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have one final supplementary question. Is the Minister of Finance then seeking a consensus on economic theory, on what is the correct attack on inflation irr Canada in the year 1974-75? Is it the approach about which the consensus is being sought and, if so, when may we expect a response, some time in this decade or the next?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hopefully in this decade.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I doubt it.


RATES OF INFLATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT ON WHICH BUDGET PROPOSALS BASED
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the reports that are coming out of the Finance Minister's conference that the Minister of Finance based his budget on the assumption of a 9 per cent inflation and 6 Id per cent rate of unemployment, can the Prime Minister assure the House that these are in fact the projections or assumptions on which the November 18 budget was based?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I could not say for sure, but I am sure the Minister of Finance will be glad to answer that.


James McPhail Gillies: In view of those reports, would it be a fair statement that the government is prepared to accept as successful an inflation rate of something like 10 per cent during 1975?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We constantly indicated that inflation at these rates is inflation that gives the government great concern, and that is the reason we brought in so many policies to combat it. We hope that these policies-


UNEMPLOYMENT-REASON FOR FAILURE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT UNEMPLOYED NATIVE PEOPLE IN PREPARING MONTHLY FIGURES-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I should like to put my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the National Indian Brotherhood estimates the level of unemployment amongst native people living on reserves in Canada varies between 50 per cent and 80 per cent at the present time, can the Prime Minister inform the House why these unemployment levels are not taken into consideration in the preparation of the monthly figures indicating unemployment levels in the country as a whole?

December 10, 1974
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be glad to refer that question to the appropriate minister, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question. When the Prime Minister refers that question to the appropriate minister would he find out or get a commitment or issue a directive to the minister, rather, indicating the desirability of having statistics available on a regular basis which indicate the level of unemployment on the reserves with our native people. This is obviously a very important way for this House to determine the policies and programs and to what degree they need to be improved to provide employment for these people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly refer that question to the minister as well.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Yesterday, I asked him a question arising from the remarks the Quebec Minister of Justice had made the night before on the CBC network, accusing him of hiding behind the Solicitor General and behaving like an hypocrite in connection with the money asked by the province of Quebec in compensation with the non utilization by the Quebec government of the RCMP. The Prime Minister replied yesterday that he would check the remarks made by the Quebec Minister of Justice. Can the Prime Minister now advise the House whether he has checked and communicated with the Quebec Minister of Justice and, in the affirmative, what sort of understanding or misunderstanding they have reached?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, in part, Mr. Speaker. I have read some excerpts of the statement made by Mr. Choquette, but I have not seen the complete statement yet. I have been told that he added this morning to what he had already said. I was not aware of this before I came into the House. I simply cannot reply as long as I have not read the complete statement. On the other hand, I am not the type to hide behind any of my ministers; if Premier Bourassa wants to contact me about this, I think he could do it directly, without passing through Mr. Choquette.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. Just when the Prime Minister was sitting down after having answered my last question, which was really intended for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that minister came into the House. I wonder if I could be permitted to direct the question to him now that he is here.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He will get notice of it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Shore.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the staggering lobster trap losses suffered by lobster fishermen from Sable Islands, Shelburne County, to Cole Harbour, Halifax County, Nova Scotia, as a result of a severe storm on the night of December 2 which delivered a crippling blow to the inshore lobster fishing industry, has the minister taken steps to classify this area as a disaster area or what action does the government contemplate taking to assist these fishermen in surmounting their disastrous losses?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for indicating to me yesterday that he intended to raise this question. My colleague from Yarmouth also raised it. I regret to inform the House that some 92,000 traps have been lost and in some areas it has been a complete disaster, with as much as a 75 per cent loss. In other areas the loss varies from 25 per cent to 40 per cent. When we get a full assessment I hope we can do something about it.


THE ARTS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State of which I sent him notice yesterday. I am sure his parliamentary secretary will be able to reply. May I ask if the minister has received an urgent request for an emergency grant for structural and maintenance aid for the Confederation Centre of the Performing Arts in Charlottetown. Also, can he advise what measures of assistance are contemplated for this artistically valuable cultural centre erected by the national and provincial governments to commemorate the Charlottetown conference of 1864, the deliberations of which brought this country into being.


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take the hon. member's question as notice and refer it to the minister.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As the Minister of Finance said yesterday, "I want the labour movement and business to tell me what they can do and then we will see if we can work out a consensus," is it not
December 10, 1974

the intention of the government to present immediately to these groups at least a preliminary policy of its own as to what level of restraint should be expected from each, or does the Prime Minister merely wish to play the role of host?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister's guidelines for conflicts of interest relating to ministers of the Crown do not include spouses and since the right hon. gentleman, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, said that he had discovered potential conflicts of interest during the period he had given ministers to put their affairs in order, can he assure the House that under present guidelines no minister of the Crown has transferred assets to a spouse in order to avoid conflict of interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wanted to hear the full import of the question before intervening. The hon. member well knows that the subject of conflict of interest guidelines, and the green paper have been referred to the standing committee. Also, specific guidelines respecting conflict of interest involving ministers and senior civil servants are to be the subject matter of debate today and I feel that these questions should be dealt with then rather than at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish the minions on the backbenches would remain silent. It was precisely because there is to be that debate this afternoon and this evening that I asked my question, since the Prime Minister's answer would have a bearing on my remarks either this afternoon or this evening. The Prime Minister may not necessarily be present in the House during the debate, nor will he necessarily reply to speeches made later today. That is why I asked this specific question. I am sure he would like to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Be that as it may, I feel that whoever participates in this important debate on behalf of the government will be able to address himself, as the lead-off speaker, to the very important question asked by the hon. member. I think that will be the appropriate time to do it.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the answer to the hon. member's question would put the debate in its proper perspective.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member for Labelle wants to shout and yell all the
Oral Questions
time. I do not think he was sent to this House to do that. I am trying to make a sensible, responsible suggestion. The answer to the hon. member's question would put this afternoon's debate on the rails.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I listen religiously to the questions of hon. members of the opposition, but I think that if the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi had referred himself to today's order paper, he could have waited to put his question during the debate now about to take place.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and has to do with the escape from the British Columbia penitentiary last week of two dangerous criminals. Can the Solicitor General advise the House if the four towers in the British Columbia penitentiary will be manned 24 hours a day, as they were last year when there was such a rash of escapes, so that the people of British Columbia may be protected against escaping convicts?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the only time the towers are not manned is-


An hon. Member:: For coffee break.


William Warren Allmand: -from midnight until eight o'clock in the morning.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to say that the only time the towers are not manned in the B.C. pen is after midnight, when inmates are locked in their cells. In this particular escape inmates had put dummies in their cells, and had hidden-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baldwin:: The dummies are on the government side.


Mr. Hees:: Is that why you are so slim today?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to give the House full information on this question. Before lock-up these inmates had put dummies in their beds and had hidden outside. After the lock-up, with the guards absent from the towers, they escaped.


George Harris Hees: The dummies stayed in and the prisoners walked out.
2102

December 10, 1974
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to know if the opposition is really serious about hearing an answer to the question. Last year we tried, for a while, to keep guards in the towers at all times, even when inmates were locked in their cells. It was found to be an expensive operation and it was recommended to me as being unnecessary. As a result of that escape-


George Harris Hees: How many got out?


William Warren Allmand: I must say that few escaped after midnight and before the men got up in the morning, but there were these escapes. I am looking at this question again; it involves the question of cost-benefit ratio. Is it worth keeping guards in all towers between midnight and six or seven o'clock in the morning? We will look into that once more.


John Douglas Reynolds: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As prisoners are still escaping between midnight and eight o'clock in the morning, would the minister consider putting dummies in the towers so that prisoners will think they are being watched?


William Warren Allmand: Are you available for the job?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FINANCE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance-


An hon. Member:: He is in the tower.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -perhaps I can direct my question to the Prime Minister. As the recent reduction form 25 per cent to 15 per cent in the customs duty on imported bicycles is threatening the industry at the former Rivers defence base, that being a successful project supported by the Department of Indian Affairs, what action is the government taking to resolve this conflict of interests?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance who has been consulting with me on this matter because DREE is involved in the project, may I advise the hon. member that the matter is now under consideration. No decision has been made about duty I should point out that some changes in sales tax regulations will be of benefit to the company and may offset to some degree the effects of the decline in the rate of duty.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister been made aware of this problem and has he moved to protect the interests of the native people who are employed on this project?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have been made aware of the problem and I have been discussing the situation with my colleague, the Minister of Finance.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the conclusion reached by Judge Estey in the steel price inquiry that "any future price increases should be linked directly to cost increases, otherwise the profit margins which customarily obtain in the industry will be exceeded", and in view of the announcement by the steel companies this week of further price increases ranging from seven to twelve per cent in the case of certain products, has the government conducted an investigation to determine whether these increases are directly related to costs, and, if not, why not?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I take notice of this question. I will be pleased to get the necessary information.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I did not get an answer to that question from either the minister or the Prime Minister, but I think the Prime Minister can answer this supplementary: will the right hon. gentleman ensure that these price increases, if justified, will apply only to new production and not to the existing inventory, so as to prevent, in effect the double ticketing of steel products?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure this is the kind of question I would have referred to the parliamentary secretary had I been given notice of it. His minister is presently meeting with the Prime Minister of Iran. This is not the kind of question to which I have the answer in my head, and I think the House should realize that. If I had answered the question I would have answered it in exactly the same way as the parliamentary secretary did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
December 10, 1974

Following the federal-provincial conference on mining policy, Quebec Finance Minister Masse has maintained that the federal government should withdraw from the uranium mining industry. Did the minister communicate with the provincial minister about this?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did discuss the matter with the minister and I have also looked into his communication.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Contrary to the agreements signed by the provinces, does the minister consider that the role of the federal government is to act simply as a customs officer when it comes to the export of uranium?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker. I have informed the provincial ministers that the federal government does not intend to relinquish its jurisdiction over uranium.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HIS EMINENCE ABBAS HOVEYDA, PRIME MINISTER OF IRAN
Mr. Speaker:: Before carrying on with the question period may I direct the attention of hon. members to the arrival in our galleries at just this moment of a very distinguished visitor, His Eminence Abbas Hoveyda the Prime Minister of Iran.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPOSED CONTINUOUS OPERATION OF DRYING FACILITIES AT TERMINALS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice who reports for the Wheat Board. Since it is a known fact, or an estimated fact-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley James Korchinski: Since it has been estimated that 26 per cent of all the grain in western Canada is either tough or damp, are the drying facilities at the terminals, particularly those at Thunder Bay, working round the clock on a seven-day-a-week basis?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: With the slowdown in the movement of grain out of Thunder Bay there may have been some difficulty recently about unloading at maximum capacity, but I can assure the hon. member that the Wheat Board is very conscious of this
Oral Questions
problem and is urging farmers to do a lot of the drying themselves. The board is also making sure that the various drying facilities both inland and at the ports are being used to capacity.


Stanley James Korchinski: Since it is a known fact that it is more economic to dry the grain at the terminals than to do so in private drying facilities, will the minister ask the Wheat Board and those concerned to endeavour to operate these facilities on a seven-day-a-week round the clock basis?


Otto Emil Lang: As I have indicated, even if the facilities are being operated in that fashion, a significant amount of drying on the farm will still be required. The fact of the matter at present is that it is more economic to dry the grain in that way-recent changes in price spreads have widened the differential in price between damp and dry grain, so it is more profitable for the farmer to dry it.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Would the hon. lady please advise us whether plans for the new environmental centre in Vancouver promised by the former minister of the environment during the July election campaign are continuing and, if so, whether they are available?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: The hon. member is no doubt aware that some restraint has to be exercised in capital expenditure-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Jeanne Sauvé: This particular expenditure is presently under review and will be looked at in the context of general government expenditures.


HOUSING
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Would the minister inform the House whether or not recipients of housing assistance under provincial housing programs through which the cost of homes has been reduced, in some cases, to the $18,000-$25,000 level, will be eligible for the $500 tax-free cash grant?
Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban
Affairs): Without understanding the question fully, I would suggest that if it is a first-time purchase and if it complies with the other criteria, these people will be eligible.

December 10, 1974
Oral Questions


Stan Darling: If, as the minister indicates, these people will be eligible for the grant, will the hon. gentleman tell us whether or not he considers this to be appropriate, bearing in mind the fact that they have already received housing assistance?


Mr. Danson:: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are a large number of people who receive housing assistance in one form or another because so many programs have been initiated by the federal government with a view to helping those who need housing. But they will, nevertheless, be eligible for further benefits, except in certain circumstances where people have received more than 100 per cent financing.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Does Canadian National intend to sell any of the CN hotels? Specifically, is the Macdonald Hotel in Edmonton up for sale to the Conrad Hilton hotel chain?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: I do not have the answer to that question but I will take it as notice and obtain a reply for the hon. member.


OIL-PROPOSED COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION OF REASON DRILLING RIGS LEAVING ALBERTA
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that drilling rigs in Alberta are now leaving in droves and Canadian geologists and technical know-how people are leaving for the United States, all caused by the devastating policies of the federal government and the uncertainty, is the minister now prepared, as he does not seem to accept the real facts, to give a direction, with the co-operation of the members of the House, to the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, or to the standing committee that looks after this matter, to go to Calgary, Edmonton and other places in Alberta and in Saskatchewan to get the facts immediately, so as to reverse these policies and secure a supply of petroleum for Canada in the future?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I might suggest to the hon. gentleman that he start off by reading the speech of Premier Lougheed last week, when he pointed out that while there may indeed have been rigs leaving Alberta, they were going in some cases to federal territories. Perhaps he might like to look into the policies of the provincial government first.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps the minister is prepared to send some people from his department to the ports of entry of Canada and the United States, where they would see drilling rigs leaving Alberta for the United States. Just as an aside, the last one out last week put the lights out in Calgary.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am inclined to take the judgment made by the premier of Alberta regarding the reasons for the drop in drilling in that province, and, of course, he does not ascribe it in any sense to the reasons stated by the hon. gentleman.


DISALLOWANCE OF ROYALTIES AS DEDUCTION FROM INCOME TAX-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ROYALTIES IMPOSED BY FEDERAL LEGISLATION IN YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Welcome back.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am always overjoyed at the welcome back given to me, but hon. members do not seem to realize that I and the hon. member for Northwest Territories come from a jurisdiction under the absolute control of the federal authority and we have to run around after dozens and dozens of boards and commissions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: My question to the minister of energy is this. With respect to the policy of the government on disallowance of royalties as a deduction from income tax, does the government intend to apply that same policy to the royalties imposed by federal legislation in the federal jurisdictions of the Yukon and Northwest Territories?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman might like to pose that question to my colleague, but my answer is that I believe that is also the policy.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister and deals with the Soviet espionage agent Alexander Gresko. Can the Prime Minister offer any explanation why he would have his picture taken in his office with Mr. Gresko, a well known senior Russian spy already ejected from Great Britain for high level espionage activities, and does not the Prime Minister consider it a political affront to Britain if he entertains a person who is declared by that government persona non grata?
December 10, 1974


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
consider that an affront, Mr. Speaker.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Assuming that it is the policy of the Department of External Affairs to grant neither diplomatic nor courtesy visas to known Soviet spies or other spies, which in fact they have done in the past, and assuming that it is the policy of that office to regard information from the RCMP on matters relating to national security seriously, would the Prime Minister assure the House, therefore, for the sake of national security, notwithstanding the security for the Olympic games-Mr. Gresko is Soviet attache to the games in Montreal-that appropriate steps will be taken to declare Alexander Gresko persona non grata in Canada and to refuse him any further entry to this country? If not, I should like some explanation why not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the Department of External Affairs and the RCMP are aware, and were aware, of the identity of Mr. Gresko. Any steps that they take will be made known to the House.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the desire frequently expressed by representatives of the government of Alberta to develop the Alberta tar sands as soon as possible, and in view of the statement of the Minister of the Environment of that province on November 4 in the Alberta house in which he said that "the accord"-he meant the accord between themselves and the federal government-"if and when we reach one, will recognize that the province will be in the forefront in dealing with the companies", and that "we are very close to reaching an accord", would the minister advise this House if negotiations are still taking place, and has an accord been reached with the government of the province of Alberta concerning environmental jurisdiction over the tar sands?


Jeanne Sauvé: No, Mr. Speaker. The question of agreements on responsibilities in environmental matters is now under study. A draft of the agreement which could be signed between the different provinces and the federal government is now before the Alberta Minister of Environment and Resources. He sent me back some corrections, some amendments he would like to make to this agreement and we are discussing this.
Oral Questions


ALLEGED DESTRUCTION OF BIRDS IN TAR SANDS- POSSIBILITY OF CHARGES BEING LAID
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that there have been rumours that 1,000 to 2,000 birds have been destroyed in the tar sands-and there is certainly confirmation of some bird kill-is the minister now ready to advise the House whether her department has determined if charges should be laid with respect to the death of any of those birds in the tar sands, or whether an investigation has been completed?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, about the report on bird killings in the tar sands, I must say there is no basis to it. There has been no such thing as the destruction of thousands of birds in ponds used for settling some residue from tar sands development plants.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister assure the House that she will rely on information received from her own department and from the government of Alberta, rather than information provided by the companies, which has largely been the case to date?


Jeanne Sauvé: I think the information to which the hon. member alluded come from the press and those I gave him
come from my own services.


HISTORIC SITES
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
How does he propose to implement the recommendation of Heritage Canada, made public on December 9, that the federal government should recognize the mother house of the Grey Nuns of Montreal as a national historic site, buy it, endeavour to renovate it and use this architectural complex for public purposes?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this representation made by Heritage Canada and it is my intention to draw it to the attention of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, which must first make a determination as to its historical significance.

December 10, 1974
Oral Questions HEALTH


NEED FOR INCREASE IN NUMBER OF MEDICAL STUDENTS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Mb'. Jake Epp (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that a high proportion of foreign students are presently enrolled in Canadian medical schools and that at the time Medicare was introduced by the government a commitment was given that federal funding would be used to expand medical school facilities, would the minister now give us an explanation regarding what policies are presently underway to increase the number of seats in Canadian medical schools for medical students?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the answer could be long but I will try to make it as short as possible. Over $500 million has been spent on improving medical education facilities in this country after the introduction of Medicare, and at the present time the rate of production in our medical faculties in Canada is substantially higher than it was five or 10 years ago. As far as the presence of foreign students in our medical faculties is concerned, we must bear in mind that we have a great number of Canadian students and graduates of medicine studying abroad in other countries, so we should be very careful before we jump to any conclusion as to what should be done with regard to foreign students in Canada.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Since the legislation presented last year on juvenile delinquents has been generally rejected, would the minister tell the House whether he intends to introduce a new bill to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the work in connection with the bill is going on under the supervision of the Solicitor General.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour but I do not see him in his seat, so perhaps I can-


An hon. Member:: Here he is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the Norris inquiry dealt at length with the dangers and problems associated with hiring hall practices and so on. Charges have been raised time and time again with regard to "do not ship" lists and other problems directly related to the hiring hall and the Seafarers' International Union. I would ask whether the minister can advise why the hiring hall system of engaging seamen is continually used by the Seafarers' International Union and the Canadian Lake Carriers Association when there is a specific legislative provision outlawing the hiring system set forth in Section 154(1) of the shipping act? It is very short so I should like to read it. I am sure the minister is aware of it. It states-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the minister is aware of the law.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the question of the hiring hall as it is being practised has not been the subject of a complaint by the major parties involved, for instance on the Great Lakes. I will say right now in the House in answer to the hon. member that if anybody wishes to launch a complaint against the present practice, or back up any allegations with any facts at all we will look into the matter. In the meantime, I have been advised that this is not the case at the present time.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's answer I would like to put another very brief question to him. Is he in fact satisfied that any complaints which have arisen relative to this matter are being adequately looked after by the so-called "watchdog committee" that has been set up through the Canadian Labour Congress? I should like also to go back briefly and ask the minister again, since he is familiar with this specific statutory prohibition against the hiring hall system, why it is that this particular statute of Canada is not being enforced?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept for a moment the hon. member's legal interpretation in respect of that particular section. I think if anything is required in terms of an amendment to the code, it would be in relation to complaints in respect of people being abused as a result of the system so they can be dealt with quickly. I do not agree with the present legal interpretation, and I would reiterate to the hon. member that if any complaints should come forward they should immediately be referred to the Canada Labour Relations Board for investigation.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question or a point of order.


Mr. Forrestall:: Or a question of privilege, one or the
other.


Mr. Speaker:: No matter how you describe it, there seems to be a contest between the two seat mates to see who will ask the next question. If they can agree I will be glad to have one of them ask the next supplementary question.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Go ahead.
December 10, 1974


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the Minister of Labour is attempting to advise the House that the SIU is above the law in respect of infractions under the act under which it operates and which is within the jurisdiction of this particular legislative body, and that these should not be construed as infractions unless somebody complains?


John Carr Munro: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. All I am indicating-


J. Michael Forrestall: That's what you said, John. Don't be so hyper.


John Carr Munro: All I am indicating is that during the time the so-called "hiring hall" practice has been underway there have been no complaints in respect of it. I want to say as well that during negotiations on the Great Lakes this was not a principal issue of dispute between the employers and the employees. If the hon. member wishes to launch a complaint in respect of abuses of the so-called "hiring hall" system, there are mechanisms now in place to thoroughly investigate and come to a conclusion.	.


J. Michael Forrestall: John, you are so sensitive about a completely straight-forward matter that you cannot see your nose.



REASON FOR INCREASE IN PRICE OF INSULIN-INCREASE IN PRICE OF PANCREATIC GLANDS

Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the price of insulin has increased by over 20 per cent in the last two months, and the fact that this price was held steady for years when Connaught Laboratories was under the aegis of the University of Toronto, can the Minister of National Health and Welfare explain why insulin production, which is essential for the survival of thousands of Canadians, was put on a profit making basis when Connaught Laboratories became part of the Canada Development Corporations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question has a very familiar ring to it. If I am not mistaken, another member of the hon. member's party put that question in exactly those words to the minister.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My question was prompted by a direct letter of inquiry from one of my constituents with information I was not aware had been presented before.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the minister answered the question at the time.


Marc Lalonde: No, I do not think it was. I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask a question on this matter. I should like to draw his attention to the fact that animal pancreatic glands, from which insulin is made, have gone up in price very substantially
Oral Questions
from approximately 35 cents a pound to 75 cents a pound. It is inevitable that some of this increase would show up in the price of insulin. I am just as concerned as the hon. member about the increase in the price. There has been a meeting between the interested parties concerned, the Connaught Laboratories, the Canadian Diabetic Association and several federal departments, at which the whole question of price and supply was discussed. Indeed, a close look is being taken at this situation. I might add that every indication is that the price of insulin has not gone up by as much as the price of the glands has gone up, and it is unlikely that it will do so.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact there has been such a pronounced increase in the price of the pancreatic glands which are used, as the minister has said, in the manufacture of insulin, and in view of the fact that this price is not reflected in current revenue, according to the cattle industry, what explanation does the minister have for the increase in the price of these particular organs?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not have a complete answer in respect of this particular situation, except that the price of animal products has gone up substantially over the last few years.



INSULIN-POSSIBLE HOARDING OF PANCREATIC GLANDS BY PRODUCERS TO DRIVE UP PRICE

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he has carried out studies or investigations within his department to determine if producers are in fact withholding animal pancreas from the market in order to drive the price up? This is the evidence we have.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the evidence that my department has collected from the meetings and discussions that have taken place between the parties concerned, including the Canadian Diabetic Association and Connaught Laboratories, has not provided us with any indication at all of hoarding. There appears to be no foundation to this allegation. What has happened is that there has been a higher demand for glands, not only for insulin production but for other purposes. The packing industry has been made aware of the priority that should be given to providing glands for the production of insulin. The conclusion is that there is no reason to expect any particular shortage of insulin in the foreseeable future.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief point of order for the sake of clarification. I do not want there to be any confusion in respect of Hansard tomorrow. The minister was referring to the Canada Labour Code in the course of an answer to me and I was referring to the Canada Shipping Act. I just want to have on the record that while he was speaking about complaints and so on pursuant to the Canada Labour Code I was referring to section 154 (1) of the Canada Shipping Act when I was asking the question.

December 10, 1974
Conflict of Interest



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[English]	-

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council) moved:: That the green paper entitled "Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest" tabled on November 27, 1974, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections; and
That, after the committee has concluded its deliberations and submitted its report on the aforementioned matter, it be authorized to consider and make recommendations upon the subject-matter of ministers and conflict of interest and public servants and conflict of interest.


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There has been some discussion about time limits on this debate. This is a government motion on an opposition day, so it has some characteristics of both. I think there is general understanding that the normal rules should apply. However, I am advised by my seatmate that he will not abuse his privilege in respect of unlimited time, like the seatmate of the government House leader did not long ago. After the first four speakers, two speakers for the official opposition, and after the government House leader, who will be speaking later by agreement-


Mitchell William Sharp: I will speak first.


Gerald William Baldwin: I beg your pardon. After the government House leader, the first two speakers for the official opposition, and speakers for the NDP and the Creditistes have spoken, there will be a ten-minute limit on speeches. I think this will be useful and will give members more opportunity to discuss this important issue.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to make sure that this agreement implies that our first speaker will have enough time to deliver his speech and that the next two will have ten minutes. Is that what the hon. member for Peace River means?


Gerald William Baldwin: Not unlimited time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that was not quite our understanding, if I may speak as one who was involved in the discussion. We understood that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), who would be the first two speakers, would try to hold themselves to half an hour each, and that thereafter the first speaker for this party and the first speaker for the Social Credit party would get half an hour and everybody else would get ten minutes. This is the proposition to which we agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I hope I do not go beyond half an hour, but I do not agree to be limited to half an hour. I will try to stick to it as much as I can.


Mitchell William Sharp: We are agreeable to that understanding. I shall try to keep my remarks to within 30 minutes, but I hope I will not be stopped if I should take another two or three minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The extension of anything resembling unlimited time, or 30 minutes as I understand it, to all three speakers from the opposition parties is a departure in itself from the rules. My understanding of the rules is that the mover of a motion on an allotted day, and the first speaker immediately in reply thereto, are not under any constraints as to time; thereafter, everyone suffers the 30-minute time limit. However, if it is understood that there is a relaxed view toward the first four speakers, but that deadlines are such that they ought to try to keep themselves within 30 minutes if at all possible, perhaps we can proceed on that basis. Thereafter, all speakers would have ten minutes. Is that agreed?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the ten-minute limitation. I would be agreeable to cutting it in half from 30 minutes to 15 minutes, but not to ten minutes.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) rises on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important point. You just said that the spokesmen for the government and for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will each be able to speak for 30 minutes, but you did not say how much time will be allocated to the leaders of the New Democratic Party and of the Social Credit Party of CanaddAThis is why I would like to insist that the leader of the Social Credit Party (Mr. Caouette) be given as much time as the government's and the Official Opposition's spokesmen, otherwise we would withdraw our support.


Mr. Speaker:: It is evident that the Chair can be guided here only by some accord from members, which does not seem to exist or, alternatively, apply the rule which exists, which is the way we will have to proceed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, during the last parliament my predecessor in office, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), tabled a green paper entitled "Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest" and placed on the order paper a motion to refer this paper to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. As hon. members are aware, I tabled the same paper again in this House and put down a similar motion for its reference to the same standing committee.
As a result of discussion among the party representatives-here I should like particularly to acknowledge the co-operation of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield)-the final allotted day for this part of the session is being devoted to a debate on the reference which, however, has been amended to refer the green paper and the other questions to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The motion asks the commit-

December 10, 1974

tee to study and report to this House on the green paper which deals with members of parliament and conflict of interest, and then to turn its attention to two related members-ministers and conflict of interest and public servants and conflict of interest.
All three matters are of major importance, and the government has taken the lead in all of them. We initiated the reference to the standing committee because we want the proposals we have made, whether relating to members of parliament, ministers or public servants, to be examined carefully and thoroughly and we are hopeful that out of this study will emerge a sound basis on which to base both the law and the practice. We shall take steps, I might add, to bring the same matter before the other place because the position of senators is involved just as is the position of members of parliament.
On several occasions, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other ministers have emphasized that we have put forward our proposals in this difficult field, whether relating to members of parliament, ministers or public servants, not as fixed and final but as constructive steps forward. They are subject to review and can probably be improved. We are prepared to look at them again in light of the conclusions of the standing committee and of parliament as a whole because eventually the committee's report will be returned to us.
I should remind hon. members, as we enter this debate, that already parliament has taken major action in a related field by recent amendments to the Canada Elections Act and by passage of the Election Expenses Act. We have gone a long way by these reforms to put the financing of election campaigns and the financing of political parties on a basis that minimizes any possible conflict of interest and that in fact encourages individuals, corporations and trade unions to participate in the political process by making contributions to their candidates or to the political parties they wish to support.
I mention this in light of recent discussion in this House. I draw attention particularly to the point that the reform legislation does not in any way discourage contributions to political campaigns. By a system of tax credits, such contributions are, on the contrary, encouraged, and this is as it should be. No stigma should attach to the support of a political party or candidate by anyone in this country so long as the contribution is open and above-board.
The principle underlying our election expenses legislation is that the source of major financing of parties and candidates should be disclosed, not prevented. It is for all candidates for office and for all parties to decide what to accept and what not to accept within the law, and it does not seem to me that the responsibility differs as between candidates or parties. Presumably, most if not all of those who stand for office, at least of the principal parties, do so with the hope of being on the government side or even of being a member of the cabinet. Presumably, all parties are striving to become the party in office at some time, and even when that is not so I do not imagine that any candidate who stands for parliament without hope or
Conflict of Interest
ambition to become a minister will be more willing to accept a particular contribution for that reason.
As I have said, we have taken a giant step forward in the reform of the election laws. The task before us now is to make similar progress in establishing standards for the conduct of members of parliament who are safely elected. I turn, then, to the green paper and first of all I draw attention to a part of the green paper that is related directly to the question of elections. Let me refer to one specific proposal in the green paper. It is proposed that a candidate for membership in the House of Commons should be required, when nominated, to list with the Chief Electoral Officer the details of all financial interests and offices he holds which would be prohibited if he were a member. He would also be required to list all holdings and companies in which he holds more than 5 per cent of the issued shares, if they are public companies. Upon election, a new member would be required to divest himself of prohibited interests and offices as soon as possible or, in any event, within a year.
Certain fundamental, ethical and democratic principles underlie the specific proposals advanced in the green paper. First and foremost, our democratic system is based on the requirement that members of parliament and senators perform, and be seen to perform, their duties in a manner reflecting the highest possible degree of concern for the public interest. Similarly, it is basic that all members of the public should be assured of equal access to and impartial treatment by government officials at all times, and that the key advocacy rule of members of parliament and senators be governed by that principle. In accepting membership in either chamber, a member of parliament or a senator simultaneously accepts a code of conduct which is commensurate with his public responsibilities.
However, we must be careful not to develop rules respecting conflict of interest which turn the House of Commons and the Senate into the private preserves of only a few whose personal circumstances are such as to allow them to meet overly stringent standards. The very representativeness of these chambers might be adversely affected were we to decide to require their members to divest themselves of all financial assets or other private interests. It was these considerations which led the government to place before the House, in the green paper, various forms of rules including an independence of parliament act, orders of both chambers and retention of certain principles in the Criminal Code, and to suggest different means of dealing with conflicts, including strict avoidance in the clearest cases of impropriety and disclosure of interests where there is only a potential conflict. The specific proposals contained in the green paper concern those conflicts of interest that result from a member or senator having a personal pecuniary interest in a given matter that is sufficient to influence the exercise of his public duties or responsibilities.
My predecessor in office outlined the contents of this document in his statement to the House on July 17, 1973, which I commend to members of the present House. I would, therefore, only remind them of the basic concerns described in the green paper. The text addresses itself to four major areas of conflict of interest, namely bribery and prohibited fees, incompatible offices, government con-
2110

December 10, 1974
Conflict of Interest
tracts, and financial interests. The offence of bribery would remain in the Criminal Code, and a supplementary provision prohibiting the receipt of fees by members of both houses for the advocacy of personal, private or professional matters among members of parliament, senators or public servants, or before any government board or tribunal, is recommended. A Standing Order and rule for the House and Senate, respectively, are proposed to prohibit such fees.
Second, it is proposed that members and senators should be prohibited from holding nearly all federal or provincial offices, since to permit them to do so would constitute a conflict of interest, violate the supremacy of parliament or violate the concept of the division of power between federal and provincial jurisdiction.
Third, it is suggested that members of parliament and senators not be permitted, directly or indirectly, to participate in or derive benefits from government contracts. Reasonable and necessary exceptions are provided, but public disclosure would be required of members choosing to take advantage of the suggested exemptions.
In the fourth area, financial interests, disclosure is also required. To deal with possible conflicts in this area we are proposing resolutions from both houses to require members to disclose any special pecuniary interest which they may have in the subject matter of a debate or of a communication with ministers, other members or public servants. It is also recommended that a further resolution be adopted to require members of the House of Commons and of the Senate to exercise care in the management of their private investments so as not to benefit or appear to benefit from the use of confidential information. Sanctions are provided for violations. The respective chambers would, of course, police their own orders, while the Attorney General of Canada would be charged with the enforcement of the independence of parliament act.
Hon. members will recall that my predecessor in office emphasized the importance of the proposed role of a special committee that is advocated in the green paper. Let me quote from his statement appearing on page 5688 of Hansard for July 17, 1973:
What I consider to be central to the success of the others is the recommendation that a standing committee of each House be designated and charged with a permanent reference to investigate all questions of conflict of interest, to provide members on request with advisory opinions and to advise the House on a regular basis of any changes which are needed in the rules governing conflict of interest. There will be a continuing need for observation and reform.
These committees would also be empowered to grant dispensation of relief to any member from the application of certain provisions of the proposed act if it is thought that a particular provision would create undue personal hardship for the individual member or not be in the public interest.
This green paper is advanced as a possible framework for discussion of this most complex and difficult matter. It is, we believe, of the utmost importance that recommendations first be formulated which would govern the conduct of all members of both chambers. As the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement of July 18, 1973, to this House, the rules and laws applicable to members of parliament and senators will be the foundations upon which the special guidelines applicable to ministers of the Crown will rest. It is, therefore, all the more crucial that stand-

ards be developed for members of parliament as a starting point for the guidelines applicable to ministers and to public servants.
The government believes that the recommendations contained in the green paper represent a code of conduct which, if followed, would result in a standard of behaviour in which all Canadians could place their complete confidence. The proposals, however, do not attempt to canvass in detail or specific terms all possible unethical activities of members of parliament and of senators. In this, as in many areas of human conduct, rules may become less effective as they become specific.
In the final analysis, the spirit and the principles which underlie the rules we may adopt will be of paramount importance. We must not forget the fact that no rules, however wise and however just, will ensure the highest standards of conduct. The strength of our system of government will depend, as it always has, on the continued and wholehearted effort of each and every one of us to meet his responsibility to conduct himself in an honourable way.
Before concluding these remarks, Mr. Speaker, let me refer to the standards that are being applied to cabinet ministers and to public servants. The Prime Minister dealt with these matters in two statements to the House in the last parliament-on July 18, 1973, relating to ministers, and on December 18, 1973, relating to public servants and order in council appointees.
May I make a few general comments on the question of ministers and conflict of interest. As a Privy Councillor since April, 1963, I can testify that the guidelines now applying to cabinet ministers represent a considerable advance over anything required heretofore-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: From your point of view.


Mitchell William Sharp: From the point of view of a cabinet minister who has served in other administrations. This is not so much in spirit, because we were always conscious of the particular responsibilities that were placed upon us, but in terms of specific action such as the creation of trusts. I say this because I heard one hon. member opposite say something to the effect that there has been no change. I can testify, as a cabinet minister-and can probably speak for all my colleagues who have been in cabinet as long as I have-that there has been a great improvement in the specificity of the guidelines as they apply to cabinet ministers.
What has been lacking, however, has been a foundation upon which to build these ministerial guidelines. I think it is fair to say that the cabinet has moved well ahead of parliament. We do not know yet what kind of standards the two Houses of Parliament wish to apply to their members, as members. The Prime Minister dealt with this point in his statement on July 18, 1973, when he said:
... ministers will be governed by whatever decisions parliament arrives at with regard to members of the House and senators. It is our belief that, by combining the requirements of law and of parliamentary resolution with the guidelines, a clear standard will be in place against which the conduct of members of the government can be measured .. Much of what I have outlined with regard to the conduct of ministers
December 10, 1974

has been the policy of the present government and that of my predecessor for several years ... The rules ... will be put in the form of precise guidelines just as soon as parliament has had an opportunity to consider the green paper with regard to members of parliament and senators and the legislation that might be made applicable to them. It is quite possible that the general views of parliament on matters of principle and the specific provisions that are judged necessary or desirable for parliamentarians should influence the final formulation of the guidelines.
For example, there has been some questioning in the House about the guidelines as they relate to the spouses of cabinet ministers. Quite a number of questions have come from the other side. There was one today. The conflict of interest guidelines applying to the prime minister and to ministers of the Crown apply to them in all of their financial dealings. They are expected to include any transactions with or transfers to their spouses. The prime minister and cabinet ministers are also expected not to divulge any confidential information to their spouses which they might use or appear to use to their personal financial benefit. Ministers are held accountable for any breach of these guidelines or of their spirit, as was mentioned in the statement of July 18, 1973, in which the first step of the government's policy regarding conflict of interest of ministers was announced.
This being the case, and having regard to the fact that a minister and his spouse are two separate human beings, it would be unjust to impose upon the spouses of ministers restrictions which would prevent them from assuming an independent role in the community if they saw fit to do so. Moreover, it is the firm belief of the government that no conflict of interest guidelines, however stringent, can be devised which would not put the onus squarely on the individuals to whom they are applicable.
The government would welcome the views of the standing committee and of parliament on this issue. The government will wish to know how the spouses of ordinary members of parliament are to be regarded where they may have financial interests of their own. Are these interests to be revealed if their spouses are involved in advocacy which would require them to disclose an interest? I put this question just to illustrate that members of parliament will have to face up to exactly the same problems, and I hope they will solve them in the same liberal spirit that we have.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, they do not.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: You don't really
believe that.


Mitchell William Sharp: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize once again the desire of the government to facilitate the work of the standing committee. I hope it can be said of this parliament that it established for its own membership standards of conduct second to none.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth putting on the record at the outset that this debate is taking place today because the official opposition made an opposition day available for that purpose and has shamed the government into making a move. A short time ago I asked the government House leader whether the government was prepared to screw up its courage and put this matter of conflict of
Conflict of Interest
interest before the House and permit debate on the referral resolution on an opposition day. That day is now upon us, and not a moment too soon if one considers everything, aside from its courage, which the government has managed to screw up in the meantime. I regret-


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) a question?


An hon. Member:: He hasn't started yet.


William Warren Allmand: The Leader of the Opposition has kindly agreed to answer the question. He has talked about tardiness in bringing forward these conflict of interest rules. I wonder if he could tell the House whether he ever introduced such conflict of interest rules in Nova Scotia when he was premier.


Mr. Wagner:: Go back to the SIU, Warren.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As far as members of the legislature were concerned, I think the same kind of rules existed as exist here in the House of Commons. Really, the green paper does not propose any specific change of the existing situation. As far as members of the government were concerned, there were no published guidelines but there were clear understandings. I do not think there was ever an instance of a member of the government which I led being accused of involvement in a conflict of interest situation.


William Warren Allmand: You did not like that question?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It was a very good question, asking about something that happened ten years ago! The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) should bring himself up to date and realize that he has been put in an awkward position. I regret this, because I think he is an honest man and should never have been put into this awkward position. I regret to note that while the House is debating this question, five committees are sitting, preventing members opposite and on my side attending this House. They could not hear what the government House leader said and they will not listen to any pearls of wisdom which I and others may or may not drop in the course of this debate.

Later in the course of my remarks, I intend to submit to you a number of principles enunciated by the right hon. Lester B. Pearson some ten years ago. This will give you a fairly good idea of the inertia the government has demonstrated in this area. Information brought to our attention since the beginning of this session has demonstrated the extreme urgency of concrete measures. This urgency is all the more reabsince the government must now clear without delay some doubts which have been raised concerning the behaviour of some high government officials.

That urgency was missing as the minister presented the government's position. Today all we heard from the government House leader was a rehash of rhetoric to do with proposed guidelines. These, in the opinion of my colleagues, in my opinion and in the opinion of all whose opinions are known to me, are sadly inadequate. We also believe that the government is not proceeding in the right
28543 - 6514

December 10, 1974
Conflict of Interest
way to implement guidelines. Certainly, the manner in which it is proceeding today is not adequate. It should aim first at setting adequate guidelines for those at the top. Heaven knows, that is where the urgency is.
Let us get this straight: when we talk about conflict of interest, we have in mind the public interest, not political interest and not institutional interest. We are thinking of the public interest as it applies to someone entrusted with safeguarding that interest. This is a much broader concept than national security, for example. It is a wide-ranging concern and goes to the very root of public confidence in our system, in our institutions, in our political process and in those who are in high positions of trust. It is within that meaning of conflict of interest that we make our case. We believe any narrower meaning is inappropriate.
In accepting this broad definition, one must recognize that there is no way of eliminating all possible conflicts of interest which may and do exist. For example, how can you eliminate the possible conflict of interest involving a minister and a friend, or a member of the House and a friend? I recognize that it is not possible to eliminate all possible conflicts of interest, but I contend that the definition of what is the public interest must be as broad as I have made it, if problems are to be faced and situations met in a way which will increase public confidence. I believe Canadians will be much more ready to accept that kind of judgment-call approach if they perceive that the call and the judgment are weighed against guidelines and rules and regulations which have more substance than those proposed so far in relation to cabinet ministers. These, surely, are not adequate to increase public confidence. I will come back to that in a moment.

In defining the policies, rules and procedures which will become law, we shall keep in mind that we are dealing with two groups of people whose influence differs according to the group involved. The first group, of course, is made up of the people sitting in Parliament. This group includes members of Parliament, cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries, as well as the Speaker of the House and his deputies.

The other non-elected group includes career public servants, those appointed to positions in the service. Although senators are appointed, I include them for this purpose as parliamentarians. The influence exerted by those in the appointed groups is tougher to define precisely; there is not that clear and unmistakable distinction which there is between ordinary members of parliament and cabinet ministers. However, there is within the public service group a clear distinction between those who have been appointed to deputy minister status, or the equivalent level, and those who are at a support level well below the level of deputy minister. Likewise, in ministers' offices there are senior staff, people who are appointed and are different and distinct from House of Commons support staff who are available to ministers and other members through the administration headed by Mr. Speaker.
In assessing levels of influence in the public service, there is a middle ground occupied by all those whose rank ranges from assistant deputy minister down to director

which is analogous to the middle ground occupied in the elected group by parliamentary secretaries. I know, sir, that you have recognized this middle ground in this House in our proceedings, so I suggest to the government that achieving such definitions should not be beyond its ingenuity.
Across the broad spectrum there are two groups, members of parliament and those who are non-elected. Within both groups there are those who serve in special positions by appointment, and within both groups there are levels of seniority and influence. In my remarks today I do not intend to cover the waterfront-and there is no slur intended in using that expression. I will deal with the area of cabinet ministers. Before doing so, I wish to comment on the position of members of parliament who are not cabinet ministers and whose situation the green paper purports to cover.
The green paper deals with members of parliament; and I include senators, of course. As the government House leader pointed out, the green paper deals with corrupt practices, prohibited fees, incompatible offices, and government contracts. These are traditional areas in which there have been rules concerning conflict of interest and prohibited practices. The green paper perhaps goes a little further in some directions, but it does not break new ground in the area referred to.
There is also a provision in the green paper relating to members holding shares in companies which do business with the government. No member may be permitted to participate in the management or direction of a company which has a contract with the government, or an agreement. Members must list annually companies in which they are directors, officers or managers. Members, according to the proposed guidelines, may own up to 5 per cent of the shares of a company which has a government contract. However, a member's holdings may amount to less than 5 per cent in a public company which has a government contract. Unless one is involved in the management or direction of a company, how would one know, if one owns less than 5 per cent of it, that the company has a government contract?
I noted that the government House leader, when he was speaking about the Canada Elections Act, pointed out that the new legislation requires a candidate to disclose his interest-I think over 5 per cent of the shares in any public company-whether or not that company holds government contracts. But there is no provision in the green paper that any member of parliament who acquires a 5 per cent interest in a public company after becoming a member would have to disclose the fact. There is clearly no co-ordination between the disclosure provisions in the Canada Elections Act and the green paper.
As far as investments in companies are concerned, the specific provisions in the green paper are confined to instances where those companies have contracts or agreements with the government. There is nothing in the green paper relating to financial interest in a company which does not have a government contract, except the provision which has been understood for years, in a way, that a member is supposed to disclose his financial interest
December 10, 1974

before engaging in debate or making representations to a minister, for example. It does not go any further. For example, proposal 15 on page 34, which covers the situation, simply states:
In any debate of the House or its committees or transactions or communications which a member may have with other members or senators or with ministers or servants of the Crown, he shall disclose any relevant pecuniary interest or benefit he may have when that interest or benefit is not shared in common with all other persons or particular groups in society.
That is all one finds in the green paper with regard to the financial interest of members of parliament, other than interest in a company which has a contract or agreement with the government. The committee will have to consider very earnestly whether the green paper will be satisfactory to the Canadian people in this respect.
The green paper basically follows what I understand to be the British approach rather than the United States practice of requiring disclosure. But how does a member of parliament live up to the provision that, before engaging in debate, he should declare his financial interest, if any? Does he stand up in a debate on the budget, for example, which may have something to do with corporate taxation and reel off a list of the shares he owns? Does he say, "I have three shares in Bell Canada, two shares in the Royal Bank of Canada," and so on down the line? Is this really a practical way of proceeding?
It would be very inelegant, to say the least, as far as debate is concerned. Some of my wealthier friends opposite might take half an hour to list their holdings before they could even begin to talk about the subject before them. As I say, I do not think it is a practical way in which to proceed and I doubt whether the government could have been very serious in putting it forward. The committee will have to be a little more serious about this subject than the government.
Personally, I have had to face this question since I came here as a member of parliament and Leader of the Opposition. The potentialities for conflict of interest are much more rife here than they are in a provincial legislature. For example, with respect to the question put to me by the Solicitor General, I found I confronted a potential conflict of interest on many questions before the House as long as I had any shares in a corporation of which I had knowledge. This was because so many questions come before the House affecting the value of investments. This is obvious in the case of companies which are regulated by the government or by an agency of the government. It applies also, of course, to any company which is subject to the tax laws of parliament with respect to which changes are proposed from time to time.
I am not suggesting that the stand appropriate to the Leader of the Opposition must apply to other members of the opposition. My responsibilities are, presumably, somewhat different from those of a member of the opposition who is not the Leader of the Opposition. But I, personally, came to the conclusion that there were only two options appropriate for me as Leader of the Opposition-either full disclosure of all investments held by me, my wife and my minor children, or a blind trust with respect to my holdings, my wife's holdings and anything owned by a minor child.
Conflict of Interest


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I decided in favour of a blind trust for a number of reasons, the most important of which was this: if my wife has some property, why must her privacy be invaded to the extent of her having to disclose what those holdings might be? And why should a young person be, perhaps, embarrassed to some extent by the public disclosure of information which really has nothing to do with any conflict of interest? So I opted in favour of a blind trust; and I must say to all hon. members that there are disadvantages involved in a blind trust. I get a report twice a year of the net value of the investments held for me by the trustee. In conditions such as we have experienced this year, I must say I am glad I have no knowledge of what the trustee is holding, because some of the things I held at the time of the transfer are, to put it mildly, less valuable today than they were when they were transferred. I am expecting a letter-I hope it does not come this December 31-in which the trustee will say something like this, "Mr. Stanfield, we have some good news for you and some bad news. We will give you the bad news first. The assets we hold for you are now worthless. The good news is that we can assure you that this happened without any conflict of interest being involved."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not suggest-and I repeat this-that my hon. friends should necessarily be subject to the standard appropriate for myself as Leader of the Opposition and, certainly, appropriate to members of the government. But we must recognize that potential conflicts of interest go beyond holding investments in companies which have contracts or agreements with the government. That is surely an old-fashioned approach to the question as to what constitutes a conflict of interest. The committee members must ask themselves how practical and effective an answer to this problem is proposal No. 15 in this green paper. The committee will have to strike a balance when it considers the question of conflict of interest for members of the House who do not hold office in the government or the responsibility that I assume I have. The committee will not wish to discourage unduly Canadians from seeking entry into parliament by causing candidates to pay too high a price for membership in this House.
How far the committee ought to travel toward the position taken by the New York Times, as quoted on page 5 of the green paper, is a question the committee will have to consider pretty carefully and, I suggest, with some caution. In an editorial on August 26, 1970, the New York Times had this to say:
What is needed is an acceptance of the fact that election to the House or Senate ...
This is in the United States.
.. . like appointment to the cabinet, means often accepting a full-time job and a total commitment to public service. That means no directorships, no law practice, no outside business interests, and all investments put in trust until the individual returns to private life. Disclosure is not enough, divorce is the only answer. Until the line is clearly, irrevocably drawn, members of the House and Senate . . .

December 10, 1974
Conflict of Interest Again, this is in the United States.
... will not be where they ought to be-above suspicion of using public office for private enrichment.
That is a very high test indeed to which to subject all members of parliament, and members of the committee will have to consider very carefully how far along that road they wish to recommend that the ordinary member of parliament has to travel. That goal, however, is appropriate for a member of the government, and I also suggest it is appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition.
Whether or not the methods suggested in that editorial necessarily achieve that goal is not the question. Members of the committee and other members of parliament will wish to discuss carefully and conscientiously how we establish the necessary public confidence regarding conflicts of interest or, more properly, the elimination of conflicts of interest, without unduly discouraging Canadians from seeking membership in this House. There will be substantial differences of opinion in the country and in this House on the question of how far down the road to the New York Times' position members of parliament ought to be obliged or be required to travel. Therefore, there will be substantial and, I suspect, protracted debate in committee, and ultimately again in the House, on this particular question.
The simplest area to tidy up-an area that can be tidied up quickly-and an area that most urgently requires tidying up is the position of those at the top regarding conflict of interest, that is, cabinet ministers. It is absurd that this committee, according to this reference, is required to consider and report on the position of members of parliament before considering and making recommendations on the position of cabinet ministers.
In preparing the reference in this way, the government is simply indulging in games. It is putting the resolution before the House in such manner as is designed to bury the question of conflict of interest for members of the government for many months until what I suspect will be quite a long discussion of the conflict of interest of ordinary members has been terminated and reported upon. Ministers must, because of their responsibility, avoid conflicts of interest, and be seen to avoid conflicts of interest. This is urgent.
In the rules or guidelines that have been given us by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to date there is not enough recognition of the fact that the higher the position, the higher the standard that must be demanded. On the contrary, as far as ministers are concerned, the government has demonstrated in recent weeks quite an opposite approach. We heard the government House leader, for example, the other day and again today, on the question of campaign donations, suggesting that a minister of the Crown should be under no different guidelines regarding contributions and, presumably, gifts than an ordinary member of parliament. The government has shown that it considers itself, as far as the cabinet is concerned, to be a kind of nobility, above reproach and therefore beyond criticism, by its own decree.
What would have happened to someone, say, at the assistant deputy minister level in the Department of National Health and Welfare who might have taken a privately-owned jet on a visit to a foreign country on what he

claimed to be official business? What would have been the assessment of a senior public servant who did that, or something like it? For someone in the self-decreed, high quarter of the cabinet it is not a serious matter. Is that not rather a pitiable double standard? Is it not rather incredible that these people in the government continue to say, or at least continue to say that they think this kind of thing really does not involve a really serious conflict of interest?
I do not think that is acceptable. Members who sit with me on this side of the House do not think it is acceptable, and I believe a lot of members on the other side of the House do not think it is acceptable. Indeed, there are not many people around who would think it is acceptable. Yet this Prime Minister and his cabinet stubbornly insist it is not serious, and they are really suggesting that they will continue to do pretty well what they please. That, sir, is really what this debate today is all about.
Surely, standards of conduct must be set for the ministry before we can expect any renewal of public confidence in the system and before anybody can expect the application of standards to anybody else outside the ministry. When I talk of the ministry in this way, I mean it in broad terms, in terms of the high office group as a whole. In that group are the ministers themselves, who should set an example of excellence in their own conduct.
Ground rules for this entire high level group should be dealt with as a matter of first priority in tackling the whole area of conflict of interest. You just cannot take the attitude which the Prime Minister seems to take of, "Oh, well, as far as members of the cabinet are concerned, they are all okay or I would have not let them in the cabinet in the first place. So we will leave off worrying about them until everybody else is taken care of". Ministers and others in this ministry level group of appointees should receive first consideration when approaching a clean-up of conflict of interest problems. I hope that we can persuade this government of this today.
I hope we can yet persuade the government that what it proposes by way of a so-called frozen trust which is permissible for the Prime Minister and members of the government is not of any consequence unless accompanied by disclosure. I fail to understand how a frozen trust as such, of which the minister concerned or the Prime Minister knows the content, constitutes any protection against conflict of interest. I say there has to be either disclosure or a completely blind trust. As I said earlier when speaking of myself, I have come to the conclusion that there is no alternative because almost weekly cases of conflict of interest would arise for me in this House when discussing matters if I had knowledge of anything I owned, that my wife owned or my minor children owned. The frozen trust is a lot of nonsense. I hope we can achieve some recognition that the spouses and minor children of cabinet ministers must be included in the guidelines which cover broad holdings.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) brags that the government's guidelines are the best in the world. I do not think he has looked very far outside Ottawa when he says that. The Ontario government, for example, uses a
December 10, 1974

family basis for holdings of cabinet ministers; a family consists of a minister's spouse and his minor children.
The Prime Minister has made some suggestion about the sanctity of the individual-the government House leader did so again this afternoon-and the desirability of enabling a spouse to pursue an independent career. I have to say quite bluntly that this is dignifying the loophole. I want to see as little interference as possible with the life, opportunity and anything else of the spouse of a minister; but I say very emphatically that total exemption or ruling out of any consideration of what may be held by a spouse or minor children really makes conflict of interest, when applied to the property of a minister, a farce.
The government House leader said today, for example, that transfers from a minister to a spouse would have to be disclosed; they would come within the conflict of interest rules and guidelines. But supposing there is a transfer of something that is completely innocuous-say cash? What is to prevent a conflict of interest situation arising subsequently, depending upon the manner in which the spouse invests that money and the knowledge of the minister as to how it is invested? By all means let the committee try to leave as much freedom for the spouse as possible, in terms of a career, but let us not make a complete farce of the conflict of interest rules being applied to ministers by eliminating the spouse and minor children completely from any consideration.
Then there is the question of gifts to ministers. There appear to be no guidelines at all with regard to gifts. What about forgivable loans and loans in general to ministers? These should be covered in a very strict way that is spelled out publicly. There can be just as much a conflict of interest involved in a loan situation as in connection wih ownership and, again, this situation should be covered in relation to the spouses and minor children of ministers.
I understand that the last time I spoke in this House about a particular gift-that was some weeks ago-the Prime Minister took it as a below the belt, personal attack. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here today, but through you, sir, I assure him sincerely-as I attempted to do when I commented on it-that I was not attributing motives or suggesting anything remotely sinister in that particular case. I am not dealing in innuendo or smear when I say as strongly as I can that I believe this to be, in principle, an inappropriate practice, and I am obliged, because of the position I hold in this House, to draw this to the Prime Minister's attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Recent events in the House, that we might refer to as the SIU matter, have created further instances of emotional distress and ill-feeling which can only serve to cloud the issue. The issue should be clear. It should also be clear, and it is vital that it be clear to the public, that the government is prepared to respond to the issue in a way which is not open to misunderstanding, suggestion, doubt and suspicion.
There is another group which I wish to touch on very briefly. I refer to senior staff people in ministers' offices. This group becomes of greater and greater concern as the government makes more and more senior staff appointments and deputy minister appointments under what
Conflict of Interest
seems to be a concept of interchangeability. Obviously, the principle should be that the same standards which apply to cabinet ministers should apply to ministerial senior staff appointees and to deputy ministers and other high level appointees.
This principle was clearly and emphatically discussed in a letter dated November 30, 1964, by the then prime minister, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. I am not going into the background of that letter, but apparently some senior staff in the ministry had been up to strange things, or were alleged to have been, and the government was in a large vat of hot water as a result. Mr. Pearson wrote to his cabinet colleagues, in part:
There are several things that should be stressed. The central one is that a minister's staff must be subject to exactly the same high code of conduct that is recognized for ministers themselves.
It is by no means sufficient for a person in the office of a minister- or in any other position of responsibility in the public service-to act within the law. That goes without saying. Much more is required. There is an obligation not simply to observe the law but to act in a manner so scrupulous that it will bear the closest public scrutiny.
There is an interesting similarity of language, parts of it verbatim, in what the present Prime Minister said on December 18, 1973, when he made his statement to the House on guidelines for public servants and order in council appointees. As recorded in Hansard at page 8837, the Prime Minister said:
Central to our policy is the principle that it is not sufficient for a public servant merely to act within the law. We believe that there is an obligation to act in a manner so scrupulous that it will bear the closest
scrutiny.
So we see the phrase "there is an obligation to act in a manner so scrupulous that it will bear the closest scrutiny" used word for word by two different prime ministers almost ten years apart. The significant difference is that one prime minister in 1964 said that this worthy principle should apply equally to ministers, their staff and others in positions of responsibility within the public service, whereas the present Prime Minister in 1973 talked about this strict principle only in relation to the public servant and not to a member of the government. It is a not very subtle change in emphasis over the years between the approaches of the two right hon. gentlemen to conflict of interest.
In the wake of the present government's approach to senior appointments a corollary problem has become evident. Some long service, senior public servants are apparently displeased with the approach and are simply leaving the service because there does not seem to be room at the very top for other than the government's political friends. These very capable public service people are going into the private sector, as we call it. I presume that in many cases they will go into jobs in the same fields that they dealt with in the government service.
What guidelines are given to them on leaving the public service? Is there a system, or a set of rules, or is each person who leaves the public service from these high levels left largely to the dictates of his conscience to interpret the demands of the oath widely or narrowly? Surely it is a second element of unfairness to these people who have given years of service to have a situation so loose that they can feel placed under a cloud if they decide to take a particular job when they leave the service. The

December 10, 1974
Conflict of Interest
government owes it to them to publish guidelines to cover this situation.
There is still, also, no clarity in relation to top-level businessmen who move in and out of the public service on exchange programs and senior public servants performing a reciprocal exercise. There is no excuse for this whole area to be left loose any longer. The government is not doing anyone a favour by diddling along on the assumption of some never-defined honour system. The government would not insult anyone by establishing and publishing guidelines for conduct at the most senior levels as its first priority. As it is, no one is protected; anyone could be suspect in a given situation. The onus is on the government to change that situation.
We do not live and work in times when the public feels really confident about any so-called honour system which is supposed to be operating in politics and in high levels of government. Why encourage further erosion of that confidence, when the appearance of proper guidelines could start to turn things around and help to restore some confidence? Public confidence is a precious commodity, almost as precious as democracy itself, because without it the democratic system just cannot work. To encourage it requires firm action and proper priorities. Therefore, in keeping with that belief I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner):
That paragraph 2 of the motion be deleted and the following substituted:
"That the committee be authorized to report on the aforementioned
green paper after first considering and making recommendations on
the subject matter of ministers and conflict of interest and public
servants and conflict of interest".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Certainly.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I listened with great interest to the thoughtful, and what I might call unemotional approach of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), but I was a little confused-I think the confusion is fairly prevalent in the public mind-by his frequent use of the term "conflict of interest" which covers a wide range of things. Parliament itself is a conflict of interest, and the way to get rid of that is to abolish the institution. I think I should point out that we live with conflicts of interest. The hon. member did, however, use what appeared to me to be a rather more significant approach than "conflict of interest," which was the avoidance of the use of public office for private enrichment. Would he agree that basically what he meant by conflict of interest was the offence of using public office for private enrichment?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, Mr. Speaker. I think the definition given by the minister involves a very substantial part of the concept of conflict of interest, but I would not agree that it covers the whole concept of conflict of interest. I would just like to add that, even taking the definition the minister has given, the rules laid down by the Prime

Minister are just as deficient as they would be if a somewhat broader concept of conflict of interest were involved.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the minister introduce his motion in the House this afternoon I was reminded of the old chestnut about shutting the barn door after the horse has gone. The more the minister spoke, and the more one looks at the government's proposals, the more obvious it is that the correct use of that analogy, with reference to the minister's speech, would be that he only gets the barn door partly shut, perhaps half shut or a third shut, after the horse has gone.
Unfortunately, the minister seems to be under the illusion that he has produced the whole product. The proposals brought forward finally by the government to deal with the very serious subject of conflict of interest are completely inadequate. First, the emphasis by the government is entirely wrong. In this we agree entirely with the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) with respect to the amendment he has just moved, and we will support it. Instead of beginning where the problem is most serious, with the cabinet, the government starts out with a green paper on proposals for members of parliament in general who have little or no power, as everyone knows. That in fact is referred to in the green paper itself. The real power in this government, as is the case with all modern governments, is with the cabinet and senior civil servants.
So there is a diversionary tactic on the part of the government, as was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, in getting us to focus on supposed or real conflicts of interest with respect to ordinary members. Instead of presenting the House with proposals or regulations which have teeth, the government has given us-I say this with care-mere cosmetics, a situation which in my view makes matters worse because it leaves the impression that a bad situation is being remedied, when in fact it is not.
Before discussing the three areas-members of parliament, cabinet ministers and senior public servants-in a detailed way, and what the reaction of the New Democratic Party is to each set of proposals for these different areas of responsibility, I want to indicate why it is a serious question that is before us, namely, conflict of interest. I think it is no accident that this problem has become more apparent in recent years not only in Canada but abroad in Great Britain, the United States and other countries. It has not always been seen as a major problem. First of all, there is the growth in government as a customer of business. Many government departments are major spenders in the economy: in fact, governments collectively represent the major spenders in the economy today.
The Department of National Defence, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources-you name them-at the federal level have a major input into the private economy. Second, there is the pervasiveness of regulatory, financially-supportive provisions related to promotional programs for the private sector. We have tariff and taxation laws and regulations, and major discretionary powers with the Minister of National Revenue effecting decisions as to whether to collect or not to collect taxes from certain corporations or individuals. The government makes DREE grants and pro-
December 10, 1974

vides a series of financial incentives to industry. But the precise implementation of these laws is left in the hands of the minister.
Third, there is increasing mobility between the private sector and government where we have ministers leaving their positions in the cabinet to go to very important and powerful positions in the private sector, frequently with firms operating in the sector of the economy for which, as ministers, they had direct legislative and administrative responsibilities. I submit that these three points are relatively recent in their growth and significance, which makes it much more apparent that we need tough regulations pertaining to conflict of interest.
I want to get back to three areas of concern, first of all the green paper to which the motion moved by the minister refers. What do we get, in the green paper, proposals for ordinary members of parliament? In the main, it proposes a codification of existing laws and practices with respect to corrupt practices and prohibited fees, incompatible offices, participation in government contracts and financial interests. I repeat, it is essentially a codification of practices that have been around for many years. There is no great innovation in the green paper. The minister was patting himself a little too much on the back when he rose in the House today and presented this document as a significant innovation. All it does is to bring together practices that have been going on for many years in the House of Commons and in the Senate.
There are a few innovations. What are they? I want to mention them before going on to raise objections about them. The first one concerns prohibited fees. By way of additions to the Standing Orders and rules, members of parliament would be prohibited from receiving a fee or reward for intervening, on behalf of constituents or members of the public, before government boards or tribunals, public servants or fellow members of parliament. Second, incompatible offices: by a new legislative provision, the holding of nearly all federal and provincial offices would be incompatible with membership in the House of Commons or the Senate even if there is no salary attached to these offices. Third, participation in government contracts: the proposed legislation would, in general, prohibit a member of parliament from participating in or deriving any benefit, directly or indirectly, from government contracts. These are the innovations which I suggest are not very significant.
What can be said in a negative way but with positive implications about the proposals even for members of parliament and even if we agree that we are beginning at the wrong end of the power structure by beginning with members of parliament? First of all, the annual disclosure of directorships and financial holdings should be comprehensive and routine for all members of parliament. It should not be restricted to the general area of government contracts, as is the proposal in the green paper. In other words, all members of parliament should have to declare their financial holdings. I think that should become a matter of routine. It is not without some direct benefit at times when we vote on legislation concerning corporate taxation, for example; or, indeed, if we vote for a variety of legislation outside the tax field that can give particular
Conflict of Interest
benefits to members of parliament. I think the public has a right to know the holdings of all MPs quite independent of holdings in companies that may have contracts with the federal government.
Second, the prohibition against participation in government contracts should be tightened up. It is much too loose. The 5 per cent threshold in particular is a serious loophole, in our view. Five per cent of the shares would often represent a significant holding, sometimes a controlling interest, in a public corporation. I think, for example that if someone held 5 per cent of the shares of Bell Telephone it would probably give them controlling interest. So the 5 per cent threshold is a meaningless threshold; it is much too high; it is open to too much abuse and requires tightening up.
Third, the committee charged with supervision of the rules, that is, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, should have the authority to investigate conflicts of interest involving cabinet ministers. This authority is expressly denied in the green paper, where it is said that the committee will not have the right to investigate alleged or potential conflicts of interest of cabinet ministers. I think that by giving a committee of the House on which backbench members from all parties are members, authority to look into alleged cases of conflict of interest we would be doing a great service to those who are concerned, including ministers of the Crown, on the question of conflict of interest.
The recent dispute, for example, concerning the SIU could have been referred to this committee with the request that it consider the matter with dispatch and report back to the House. It seems to me that a committee representing all parties in the House is the appropriate body, initially at least, to look into charges of conflict of interest involving ministers of the Crown. These are three specific proposals that seem to us in this party to make sense, and we hope that when the committee gets the green paper it will consider them with great seriousness.
Now I would like to say something about guidelines for cabinet ministers. The guidelines which we have are the product of two statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), one on July 18, 1973, and the other on December 18 of the same year. To go back to my earlier point, these must be looked at with even greater care than the regulations or guidelines pertaining to members of parliament. I repeat the point: the power, in our form of government, really resides with the cabinet and that means the potential for abuse resides, in terms of substance, with the cabinet. So the guidelines and regulations dealing with conflict of interest have to be much more stringent for cabinet ministers than for members of parliament, and anyone who suggests the contrary simply does not know what he is talking about. The green paper itself, I remind the minister, refers to this point in the following words:
It must be acknowledged that the opportunity for an individual member of parliament, other than a minister, to alter substantially the course and content of public policies, is limited.
What are the guidelines that the Prime Minister has set down vis-a-vis the holdings of cabinet ministers? There are three choices. They can put their holdings in a blind trust, a frozen trust, or-this is the third variable that was
2118

December 10, 1974
Conflict of Interest
added in December of last year-in terms of real property they can have it registered and therefore made known to the public. What is wrong with this? I said at the outset that the proposals really lack substance; they are totally defective. Why? First, there is too much discretion left in the hands of ministers and the Prime Minister himself. We need tough regulations pertaining to the cabinet, and not so many discretionary decisions left with ministers of the Crown or the Prime Minister.
The statement I have referred to is full of references to the discretionary authority of the minister. Surely, in part that is what the need for conflict of interest regulations is all about, namely, to get away from the discretionary realm in this subject. Tough regulations would protect the minister's good name as much as they would protect the public. We need more legislative control, with less authority left to ministers.
Second, Mr. Speaker, we need more complete public disclosure requirements. For example, the public should be told of the directorships that a minister resigns when he becomes a minister of the Crown. It is important to know what his previous connections were in order to know what his orientation or biases are likely to be. The public has a right to know what goes into both the blind trust and the frozen trust, for the reasons that the Leader of the Opposition indicated in the House today and for the reasons that members of my party and social scientists independent of any party have been enunciating. It is not enough simply for these trusts to be set up. The green paper does not deal with this issue at all, but is simply a cosmetic measure that leaves the impression something is being done when it is not.
Third, the exclusion of spouses and dependent children totally negates the intended result. It seems to me to be a basically misleading notion of equality of the sexes to exempt spouses from disclosure provisions applied to their husbands or wives who are cabinet members. Unless you assume, as is apparently the view of the Department of National Revenue on another matter, that the husband and wife will be divorced and the relationship is a temporal, non-significant one, such a position is contrary to human reality. The family unit should be regarded as just that in regulations dealing with conflict of interest, but the government has totally ignored that basic human and economic fact by exempting spouses from guideline regulations.
Fourth, Mr. Speaker, there are no guidelines for persons leaving the cabinet. If a minister decides to return to private life, normally he goes back to an occupation similar to the work he was doing in government. When the former minister of industry, trade and commerce, the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin, left the cabinet he went to a firm where his responsibilities would be similar to those he was exercising as a minister of the Crown. Indeed, he carried with him studies and knowledge that were directly applicable to his new line of work. I want to stress that I do not imply any criticism of Mr. Pepin in that circumstance. His is one of a number of cases that could be cited.
Our party does not have an easy answer to this problem, but I hope the committee will spend some time on it and
[Mr. Broadbent.j
perhaps come up with a regulation that would govern ministers and senior civil servants going into the private sector. We know that a deputy minister is leaving the Department of the Environment and going into a line of work very similar to what he was doing for the government. That kind of move at the top level, where there is potential gain for the firm he is going to work for, derived from his experience in government, is unquestionably an area of potential conflict of interest and should be considered. Whether appropriate regulations can be laid down in a free society is another question. This matter was looked at by a federal government commission headed by Professor Williams and completed in 1969, and it should be considered when the green paper is before the committee.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to the matter of guidelines for the public service. These were laid down by an order in council issued on December 18, 1973. There are more defects in those provisions than in these pertaining to cabinet ministers and members of parliament. I would just enumerate them. First, there is no provision covering spouses and dependent children. Second, there is no requirement for public disclosure. Third, too much discretion is vested in the public servant. The onus is on him to disclose to the minister those matters which he believes are in actual or potential conflict.
Fourth, there is no distinction between senior public servants in policy-making positions and those in lower categories. Fifth, there is no provision in respect of ministerial staff. We have talked about civil servants, members of parliament and the cabinet, but what about ministerial staff? They have access to important information which puts them as much in danger of potential conflict of interest as the other groups to which I have referred. Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is no reference in those guidelines to the process of moving back and forth between government and the private sector.
The guidelines in the order in council issued last December are even worse than the proposals and guidelines pertaining to the cabinet and members of this House. The steps the government has taken so far on the question of conflict of interest are totally inadequate. The only good result of government action to date is that for the first time in the history of the Canadian parliament, to my knowledge, a committee of the House will be looking into the issue. It is the hope of the New Democratic Party that members of that committee will come forth with proposals of greater substance than those presented by the government.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment put forward by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is quite sensible. It purports to delete paragraph (2) of the motion and substituting the following therefor:
That the committee be authorized to report on the aforementioned Green Paper after first considering and making recommendations on the subject matter of Ministers and conflict of interest and Public Servants and conflict of interest.
We have been hearing for a week about conflicts of interest involving members of Parliament, ministers and senior
December 10, 1974

civil servants. I was in the Federal Republic of Germany last week, and I heard about them even there. They were talking about conflicts of interest, and saying that people from the SIU had supplied the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) with $500, that Progressive Conservative members and even New Democratic members had also received some moneys, and fortunately, Mr. Speaker, none of them could say that the Social Credit Party of Canada had also received moneys because none of them made any contribution. We were too small and they turn to big parties. I am talking about the SIU.
Let us have a look at what is going on in the province of Quebec. People from the QFL supplied some federal ministers, provincial ministers and federal members of Parliament from Montreal with certain amounts of money. They supplied them not only with moneys but also with bullies to win the elections and they are the very people from the QFL in Montreal who yell their heads off that they are going to break up the system. And yet they help financially sustain the system. I find this a terrible situation. And to think that my good friends from the New Democratic Party are very much against those conflicts when they get a percentage of contributions from all international unions which collect them from their members within Canada. Even my good friends from the Social Credit in Montreal are members of a union out of fear and are obliged to pay a certain percentage of their contributions to the New Democratic Party. They do not brag about it in this House. But that is true. Facts will be facts. Mr. Speaker, there are certainly some conflicts involved. There are not only conflicts of interest in respect of individuals, but there are conflicts of interest for groups. When I think about the QFL in Montreal, I always see the face of fat Laberge. He is the guy who wants to break the system. He did break it in James Bay. We see this in the Cliche investigation commission. This gives us obvious proof that bosses, the government and the union leaders unite to crush the worker. If the worker objects, he is told his legs will be broken by a goon squad led by Dede Desjardins or someone else. Mr. Speaker, this situation has existed for many years. In the early 1960s, Mr. Hal Banks was put in prison. He was released on a bail of $25,000. When the time came for him to report back, he escaped to the United States. We were told: We do not have any right to extradite him. I am convinced that Liberal ministers had a part in allowing Banks to escape to the United States so that he would not be caught afterwards.
The ministers then told us: It is impossible to find him. A Toronto reporter went to New York and sat on the deck of a boat in the harbour with Hal Banks. He spent the afternoon with him smoking a cigar and drinking scotch or whiskey. Mr. Speaker, Hal Banks is still over there and has never been brought back to Canada.
For many years, incidents of this kind have been numerous. This is why I ask myself what will the green paper change? Standing Order 11 of our rules states that No Member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any member so interested will be disallowed.
In my opinion, not many members would vote if we made a careful scrutiny of the interests of all members of
Conflict of Interest
Parliament because every one of them tries to find some benefits outside the House.
I am a businessman and I do not have the right to sell a car to the government. But if I wanted to do so, what would stop me for instance from saying to another Chrysler dealer: You should submit a tender to the government, and if you get it, you can pay me back for the favour I did you.
Mr. Speaker, this example concerns the automotive industry, but the same thing now happens for building companies. That is fairly current practice in many fields. Union leaders do so freely, but not their members. The latter know absolutely nothing about the practice, but their top leaders, those who carry a lot of weight, some governments organizers and political party organizers do so. I am happy to know-though the newspapers forgot to mention it-that our party had nothing to do with contributions from the SIU or any other seafarers' union, the QFL or the CNTU. We are not mixed up with them. The journalists forgot to mention that. The three main parties are mentioned. The NDP have four more members than we have, but they are more important than we are. That only exists in the heads of the journalists.
Speaking of them, they know something about conflicts of interest. I have seen an hon. member make the most insignificant speech ever in this House. I would never have mentioned it in a newspaper. But, on leaving the House, if someone slips a $20 bill in some reporter's pocket and asks him to publish it, the next day we see the member's picture on the front page and speech is published. That is conflict of interest again. But the reporters do not brag about that.
I know we are often forgotten. There is no time to talk about us. The same goes for the CBC. People spend their time giving tips right and left to get coverage. As for me, they will "uncover" me before I act that way. But this is something I have seen first hand.
Mr. Speaker, what will the green paper prevent?
The leader of the NDP recommended earlier that ministers who had left their ministerial or government office be followed or not be authorized to continue to work in the same line. Mr. Speaker, that is a hoax. I think this is discussing to say absolutely nothing. If a minister who is a company director is forced to resign arrangements are made so that he may still remain a director.
Even if three dozen green papers were introduced what would it change? The same thing would happen again. The human being will always remain a human being. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was quite clear earlier on that. We will not stop the human being from being human because he is a minister, a party leader or the hon. member for Timiskaming. Honesty is a matter of education. To be elected to this House a man must first be honest with his voters and, if he is, he will not join with other organizations to crush his constituents and take advantage of the situation.
Mr. Speaker, before being appointed a minister, a man, whether it be Jean-Luc Pepin or a deputy minister, who receives a salary of $35,000, $40,000 or $45,000 a year and
2120

December 10, 1974
Conflict of Interest
gets an offer of $75,000 a year in the same line of work from a private business, are we going to blame him for accepting the position giving him $30,000 or $40,000 more a year? That seems normal to me. Let us not be that stupid and say: once you have been a minister, go and hide in the forest, and run away so no one will see you.
It seems to me that on that point one should use common sense in the same way as before being appointed a minister. However, let us set up standards, laws or regulations so that a minister will not be the prey of profiteers or large companies and become their stooge or puppet.
A minister of the Crown must be secure from any suspicion, as must be his officials and any other public servant. In today's Le Devoir, I think, there has been such a public servant unmasked in Quebec. It is very common in Quebec, we see that every day. Has Labour Minister Cournoyer been duped by a member of his staff, a man by the name of Morin? He is surely not a relative of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin), but he is perhaps a relative of a member of the Parti Quebecois, though. Apparently, according to calculation we made earlier, that man gets $55,000 a year, including his $23,000 salary. And he would get that for duping the minister, and without his paying any income tax! Mr. Speaker, those are conflicts of interest which should absolutely not be tolerated. We fully agree on that, we must take steps to prevent it.
As I was saying a moment ago, our financial system does nothing else but promote conflicts of interest. When anyone sponsors a bill in the Senate, does he not receive the visit of two or three company directors who come asking for his help for the passage of their bill. The Liberals receive such visitors all day long, and so do the Progressive Conservatives, the NDP and also the Social Crediters. If it is not Simpsons-Sears Limited, for an insurance company, it is Eaton's for another company. All companies act in this manner. Shall we refuse to help someone who is asking us for help? No, but let us not allow them to play tricks on us though. We are here to represent the people, and not the private interests of a group, a finance company or any other organization or union. I believe the most serious error made in Canada was to make the Rand formula compulsory. Very often workers are forced to pay dues to unions of which they are not members. We are told 30 per cent of the Canadian population is unionized. While 70 per cent are non-unionized, if half of the unionized 30 per cent are forced not only to join in and pay real dues, but on top of that contribute to NDP election funds, that is the end of it. And that group speaks on behalf of the unionized 30 per cent of the Canadian people.
I believe if we are to have adequate unions, if we are to prevent union representatives from running after us or trying to finance us under the table, we should tell them: Look after your own members, do your own recruiting and collecting, that is your job. They might then have less time to think of new strikes, overstrikes, support strikes, counterstrikes and every other kind of strike. They would have work to do, getting their own members, convincing them to join the union instead of forcing them to, as they would and actually do. We would then have healthy unions, respected membership, and member pride in their union.

As I have already said, Mr. Speaker, the little ones, the uninfluential ones get very little attention. This is also true in this House. We have here newspapermen, CBC people. You have to give a tip to have reaction, to get results or to go on the air, and especially with the three political parties. But as one might expect, this is the group that would change the system.
This morning, in my office, I had my television set on for an hour. What was there to see? The Rene Levesque story? All the time Parizeau, Rene Levesque, the whole collection of separatists with a couple of journalists. There appeared Gerald Godin, formerly of Quebec-Presse, a defunct lowly paper in Quebec City that used to preach revolution, inviting everyone to revolt and have bloodshed. That was Radio-Canada's broadcast this morning at eleven o'clock.
Mr. Speaker, there are means of stopping this, but none still of stopping human beings from being human. We in Canada let those people say whatever they like. One of them was in France recently and he realized that there is less freedom in France than in Canada and the province of Quebec, really.
Let newspapermen go and write in France what they publish here in the province of Quebec and they will be behind bars before long. It was forbidden to write anything against de Gaulle when he was President of France. Even caricatures of him were strictly forbidden.
Here in Quebec, Ontario and the rest of the country, anyone is free to caricature us. We laugh because we know from whom the cartoons come from.
Mr. Speaker, the green paper will not prevent ministers from being ministers, members of parliament from being members of parliament and human beings from being human beings. To have regulations is a good thing; some will nonetheless evade them.
One day, when the Minister of Transport personally wrote to every large company in Canada asking them to replenish the election fund of the Liberal party, he was caught. What was that? He was begging the large companies to come and help them. We must recognize it, it was a kind of conflict of interest, not for him personally but for the party.
The Progressive Conservatives have done the same thing. We also write to people to get financial assistance. The NDP does not have to write so much, because it acts in collusion-not collision-with union leaders so they get money no matter what.
As for the green paper, we agree that we are going to consider it, but we are going to vote for the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that the parliamentary committee should be authorized to report on the green paper to learn its meaning and to make proper recommendations enabling us to do the necessary cleaning and prevent abuses noted in the past. This is why, Mr. Speaker, we support the motion introduced by the Leader of the Official Opposition.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I would blame myself for not making any comments-although they will be off the cuff-on the
December 10, 1974

absolutely foolish remarks I just heard in this House. Even in this House, what are we not forced to hear when this Parliament is supposed to set the pace and to direct the nation in the way of progress. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), in his interpretation and application of conflict of interest with regard to ministers or members of parliament, expresses a concept absolutely obsolete and even reactionary of society and women in society, a concept by which two persons, because they are married together, are tied up as if they were not two separate entities with their own freedom.
This concept, Mr. Speaker, does not take into account the new dimension of the role of today's women and their desire to enjoy all the rights of a citizen. I think we could reasonably acknowledge the right of women to follow their career until their complete fulfilment. If we acknowledge this right of a woman, we should do the same for her spouse. So, Mr. Speaker, one person should not be held responsible for the other. Two married persons have their own identity and they must have the opportunity to pursue their own activities.
Do the hon. Leader of the Opposition and even the Leader of the New Democratic Party think that women are not full-fledged citizens and that they cannot have an activity as such? If a woman happens to be appointed minister of the Crown, do they think that her husband should be penalized and inhibited in his own career? This is the conclusion one comes to on the basis of the interpretation given by the hon. members to the concept of conflict of interest. According to the proposed legislation, the minister will have to declare his holdings. I entirely agree that a minister should not have interests which might lead to conflict in his high office but it does not mean that we should impose the same obligation to his spouse.
Is not a woman, if married, free to carry out any sort of business transactions, even without her husband knowing it? Why should a minister of the Crown not assume her responsibilities in such a way as not to involve her husband in her activities?
For instance, should a woman whose husband is a member of parliament be excluded from the public service either at the provincial or federal level of government?
Times have changed, Mr. Speaker, and women must be allowed to take up careers. I fully agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is not possible to regulate everything, and this green paper certainly tries to establish rules for those who assume public office.
But it is not possible, as the Leader of the Opposition will have it, to assimilate a wife to her husband or even to her under age children. And this is why, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by the remarks I hear in this House. The Leader of the Opposition keeps referring us to the Napoleonic Code which has been amended so many times already. I am also surprised to see the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) agree that members of her party assimilate the conflict of interests to the choice of a person to take up a career. If I were she, I should be ashamed to sit in the House with people and with a leader so mesmerized by the concepts of Caesar's wife, a base cliche, Mr. Speaker, that led to the enslavement of women we heard about. One cannot codify everything, Mr. Speaker, I agree. But ministers of the Crown take an oath, first
Conflict of Interest
to keep secret the facts they become acquainted with in their duties and, second, to make their decisions in the best interest of the Canadian people.
Unless the contrary has been proven, Mr. Speaker, benefit of the doubt must be given the minister having public responsibilities. It is impossible to claim that somebody has betrayed his or her oath unless supporting proof is simultaneously offered and no one can imply that that somebody is not faithful to his or her oath.
However, I completely agree that since one cannot codify everything and considering the really privileged relation existing between a man and a woman and within a family, persons in such circumstances acquire a very high sense of ethics and that must be left to everybody's conscience. As a matter of fact, it is one of this society's problems to insist or codifying everything without relying at the same time on values that make people act in such or such a way. That is a basic truth, a guiding principle in life that normally derives from the whole field of human activity. The most perfect system cannot work if trust does not exist. There must at least be some faith in people's honesty. This has always been our society's moral foundation. I agree that we should codify wherever it is possible but conscience exists and it rouses me to indignation to see that hon. members opposite have not thought about it in this discussion which is precisely related to the basic values in life.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that if I say I am indignant at the very materialistic way those people approach the matter of conflicts of interest without giving due consideration to conscience, it is not sufficient and it will not appreciably change the situation. But at least, Mr. Speaker, hon. members will know exactly what stuff I am made of.
I for one, Mr. Speaker, and I know that hon. members on this side do as I do-try to develop the very high sense of ethics that will enable me, as the only woman sitting in this Cabinet, to be a pioneer in the way which will be opened to women by the fight I am engaged in.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks of the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve). What she obviously fails to grasp, and what members on the other side of the House fail to grasp, is that this debate deals with principles which touch upon the very foundations of order in our society. It raises, first, the question of the principles of good conduct and moral responsibility on the part of elected representatives. In the reference we have before us there is recognition that such principles do in fact exist. The problem lies in the fact that the government is unwilling to take the strong, affirmative action that is needed to ensure that these principles are honoured at every level, particularly with regard to the executive.
The second fundamental question which this debate raises is that of public confidence and trust in government. A study carried out in Canada in 1968 discovered that more than one-third of Canadians were skeptical about the integrity of public officials and a substantial number considered public officials to be dishonest. There

December 10, 1974
Conflict of Interest
is evidence from studies carried out in other democratic countries of progressive erosion of trust in the integrity of government officials over the past decade. These data, while fragmentary, suggest that we have reason to be vitally concerned about the strength of public support for our political institutions. I suggest we are dealing here with a matter which touches on the very survival of democratic government as we have traditionally understood it.
Democratic government rests on trust, but that trust should not be accorded simply on faith. Those who seek concealment will inevitably be assumed to have something to conceal. Public confidence will only be accorded if there is public scrutiny. Private activities which have a public implication cannot be reserved from public scrutiny. Our sincerity as members of parliament will be judged by our willingness to apply to ourselves stringent standards and rules.
I am pleased that the government has seen fit to introduce conflict of interest guidelines regarding private members, but I am gravely concerned about the nonchalant way in which similar conflict of interest legislation regarding cabinet ministers is dealt with. Although the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) presented his guidelines on cabinet disclosure in July, 1973, it was not until December of that year that he promised a registry where the public could see these disclosures. Further delay of almost a year ensued because, in the words of the Prime Minister, "the registry was not ready because there was no staff for it nor offices allocated". Surely this is not sufficient excuse for such a lengthy delay, unless of course it gave the Prime Minister time to formulate his particular interpretation of conflict of interest legislation as it would apply to spouses and dependent children of cabinet ministers.
I would like to take issue personally with the way in which the Prime Minister dealt with this particular aspect of the guidelines. And the government House leader did nothing today to clarify the government's position on this matter. I may say, neither did the protestations of the Minister of the Environment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: They all failed to grasp the magnitude of the public concern which exists about political morality. The Prime Minister has demonstrated many times in the past just how adept and singularly clever he is at wrapping himself in robes of virtue whenever he feels vulnerable on an issue. For instance, he portrayed his heavy-handed imposition of the War Measures Act as protection for millions of Canadians, when in reality it involved denial of their civil liberties.
The country is certainly aware of the Prime Minister's tendency to adopt a deliberately simplistic and evasive approach to some of the most perplexing and agonizing problems confronting members of parliament and the Canadian electorate. Such an approach can do nothing but undermine faith in our democratic institutions. Nothing is more desperately apparent, in the wake of Watergate, of alleged corruption and innuendo, than the need to restore public confidence in the political process. Strict regulations regarding conflict of interest are a necessity so that those who are responsible for decision-making do not

appear to have any conflict between their private interests and their public duties.
How does the Prime Minister treat legitimate questions raised about the effectiveness of measures as they apply not only to cabinet ministers but to their spouses and dependent children? These are questions which are inherent in the public perception of the integrity of cabinet ministers. As one might expect from past practice, the Prime Minister treats such questions by deliberately avoiding them and distorting the issue. He grasps at any sort of camouflage, and on this occasion he reasserts his virtue by wrapping his indignation about the appropriateness of such questions in the mantle of women's rights. I should like to tell this Johnny-come-lately to the field of women's rights that in doing so he belittles the movement to which millions of Canadians, men and women, have dedicated themselves for many years. However, his newly acquired mantle of concern for women's rights is pierced through by male chauvinism. How do I arrive at this conclusion? I do so by noting the Prime Minister's replies in the House of Commons. Let me remind hon. members of his answer on November 29, when he said:
It is a position that the evolving standards in Canada are such that we could expect that a spouse will have a right to an independent career and activities. This position is not universally shared and certainly it is not the position of the Tory Party. Probably that is why they elected so few women members.


An hon. Member:: That's right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's reference to women members betrays his own outdated preconceptions with regard to the role of women in Canadian society. The Prime Minister's statement automatically assumes that spouses are women, that cabinet ministers are normally male, and that their wives need special exemptions from conflict of interest legislation. What the Prime Minister fails to understand about the women's movement is that it is equality for which we have been striving for years, not special status.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What is the reason for the Prime Minister's reference to women members? I wonder how members of parliament who happen to be women on the Liberal side of the House feel when their leader implies that they have been elected because they are women. Is it beyond the comprehension of the Prime Minister to recognize that these women could have been elected on their merits and their ability to do the job demanded of them as members of parliament? Can he not admit that they are here because they have demonstrated, in the minds of the electorate, an ability and competence to be members of parliament? The Prime Minister's remarks showed complete lack of comprehension of what equality for women and the whole women's movement really means.
Why this sudden interest in women's rights by the leader of the government? Why this sudden interest by the government leader who, during his almost seven years in office as Prime Minister, has yet to enact a single, major
December 10, 1974

piece of legislation regarding women's rights and who as Prime Minister-


An hon. Member:: It is on the order paper.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Why this sudden interest by the Prime Minister, who has never made a major speech on the subject in this House and seldom outside? Why this sudden interest by the Prime Minister who has promised a human rights commission, the major recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, in throne speech after throne speech, yet has not seen fit to introduce it in the House of Commons? But he salutes Canada's contribution to International Women's Year with a $500,000 untendered advertising award to a firm which comes up with the slogan "Why not?" Why not a woman, indeed!
The chauvinistic campaign which is shortly to be launched to tell the world about Canada's contribution to international women's year could have been written by the Prime Minister himself. Why, even his expletives are chauvinistic! Why this sudden interest in women's rights? It is because the Prime Minister must have a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from this loophole in his conflict of interest guidelines for cabinet ministers. Mr. Speaker, it does not matter how serious the matter or how sensitive the issue, the weapon of obfuscation can always be pulled from the Prime Minister's arsenal. So it is with this vitally important issue.
But if the Prime Minister thinks his belated discovery of the women's movement, and his misguided efforts to ride like Sir Lancelot to do battle on their behalf when faced with questions about the conflict of interest of spouses of cabinet ministers, will impress those who are making serious efforts toward equality in this country, let me disabuse him of any such thoughts. He will find that such use of a serious movement is an insult to millions of Canadians.
Sir Winston Churchill said:
It is a principle of public life that ministers must so order their affairs that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their private interests and their public duties.
Obviously the financial interests of spouses are closely linked to minister's private interests.
I find two glaring faults in the government's handling of conflict of interest regulations, regulations which are so fundamental to the credibility of our entire political system: First, quite simply the government accords no priority to legislation respecting cabinet ministers. Second, in what it has proposed there is no provision for conflict of interest as it relates to spouses. Mr. Speaker, this issue includes the virtue of both Caesar's wife and Calpurnia's husband.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I must admit I am somewhat surprised. I thought we were involved in a discussion on conflict of interest, and instead it seems we are involved in a debate on women's rights.


An hon. Member:: The Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) started that.
Conflict of Interest


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Your leader introduced it.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I listened very carefully, and I felt that the hon. member for Ahuntsic (Mrs. Sauve) made some interesting points which I had intended making myself in connection with the rights of my wife and her intentions
in life.
Since we are discussing women's rights perhaps I might set the record straight. This government has amended the divorce law, the abortion law, the Labour Code relating to women, the Unemployment Insurance Act as it relates to women, and has legalized the sale of contraceptive materials. It was the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), when Minister of Justice, who introduced the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. I think at this particular stage we should get off the subject of women's lib and get back to what we really should be discussing which is conflict of interest.
Although I have been here only two short years many things are not a surprise to me. However, one major surprise to me is the absolute hypocrisy we have heard in this House. The subject of conflict of interest which we are discussing today certainly is not a new subject. Surely it is a subject which every member must have considered when he came to this House.
First, we might ask what got us off the rails and why we are debating this subject today? A bit of scandal which was reported in today's Ottawa Journal sets this out in very clear terms. The article is entitled "This miasma of scandal". We are debating this issue today because of alleged violence by members of the Seafarers' International Union and because of campaign contributions to some cabinet ministers. That really, in essence, is why we are discussing this question today. That in itself is hypocritical.
I shall quote part of the article from the Ottawa Journal which I consider very appropriate. It states:
What. . .
-Opposition members-
. .. should not do is make charges of impropriety without evidence and suggest that the acceptance of union support. .. was in any way wrong
in itself.
Most Canadians ... know elections must be paid for and they know the system depends upon all sectors supporting the policital process.
This is where we start today's debate. In fact we started today's debate not on conflict of interest but on campaign contributions. I wish now to read something that is more apropos to today's discussion. I refer to a paragraph on the first page of the green paper which has been tabled, and which is the subject for discussion today. It states:
A conflict of interest denotes a situation in which a Member of Parliament has a personal or a private pecuniary interest sufficient to influence, or appear to influence, the exercise of his public duties and responsibilities.
We might consider first of all the point in reference to a member of parliament. It has been suggested in the amendment that there is a refusal to consider conflict of interest which might apply to ministers of the Crown. I suggest that first we must look at ourselves, every single one of us, and stop talking as if the situation is serious if it is big, and not too serious if it is small. I suggest there is

December 10,1974
Conflict of Interest
enough conflict of interest in respect to members in this House. It is darned nigh time that we started discussing the activities of members of this House before we start worrying about ministers of the Crown. This is dealt with in the document where it states:
Although some may still consider membership in the House of Commons a purely part-time activity, the demands being placed on Members would suggest otherwise.
I suggest that at this particular point in time everyone should accept the fact that this is not a part-time job.


An hon. Member:: It is a full-time job.


Harold Thomas Herbert: It is a full-time job. I want to go quite a bit further than the green paper. In fact I challenge the opposition to say that the green paper does not go far enough in the sense that if we are studying this we must go all the way and set the record straight in respect of everything. This is why I take issue with the statement that appears on page 4 of the green paper. It says:
'
To sever all contacts and to liquidate all holdings is a luxury which could be afforded only by those well established or by those who do not depend on such sources for security.
It has been argued with justification that extended restrictions on outside employment may therefore discourage many prospective candidates. I consider that to be garbage. If restrictions are placed on members' outside interests, it will be necessary to ensure that the level of remuneration here is sufficient to comply with these restrictions. To some extent the independence of members of parliament depends on actions of parliament itself. I feel very strongly on this point because I think that today we are influenced in the House by special segments of the population, and I believe that that is because we, in all parties, have great difficulty in finding the kind of candidates who will represent the interests of our parties in the manner in which we would like.
It strikes me as incredible that in a constituency such as my own, which some may say may be considered a fairly safe seat so far as my party is concerned, we find a total of 14 persons out of 120,000 who are prepared to put themselves up for election for the various parties. I think that this is a state of affairs which we have to face when we are studying this green paper. It arises because of the taint which presently attaches to political life. Part of that taint attaches because of the number of members who really have a conflict of interest in the other things they do quite aside from their jobs as members of parliament.
I suggest we should go all the way right now and say that members of parliament should not only divest themselves of their financial interests but should divest themselves entirely of any other income, any other job, and look upon their job as member of parliament as a one hundred per cent full-time job. On that I challenge members of the opposition, who perhaps as lawyers or accountants are working for companies that in turn are doing business with the Crown. In their case there is just as much conflict of interest as in the case of ministers who have holdings.
Also I suggest that when we talk about financial holdings as if that posed some real conflict of interest, I

wonder how many of us really believe that because we have a few shares in Imperial Oil, for example, we will be able to change the course of action taken by the government toward the oil industry. I feel that the whole attitude at present that has been attached to ministers of the Crown who have holdings which are supposed to influence their decisions is begging the real issue.
Either we accept on trust the word of every member of the House, or we establish a set of rules that governs everybody, not just ministers but every member of the House, and governs them to the point where there will be no conflict of interest because it will not be permitted to exist. Those rules must apply right down the line-severance of connections with companies, severance of connections with other jobs, severance of connection with any association that results in a member receiving moneys from any source whatsoever.


An hon. Member:: What about farmers?


Harold Thomas Herbert: Exactly that, we have farmers in this House who have large holdings, and do not tell me that there is no conflict of interest when they argue for their own point of view in committee. I am suggesting that if we are to be really honest with ourselves, we must go into committee and study this green paper which states:
A Member of Parliament is a trustee of public confidence and must perform and appear to perform his duties in a manner reflecting the highest degree of concern for the public interest.
That means that if we are going to set up rules, those rules must be complete and absolute. I challenge members of the opposition to accept that principle and not to point their finger at cabinet ministers, but to point a finger at every member of the House who theoretically, at some time in his life, will be in a position where he can be accused of conflict of interest because of an interest outside the House.


An hon. Member:: Why not cabinet ministers first?


Harold Thomas Herbert: I said already that I feel there should be no differentiation over what is considered a gross conflict of interest. Why is the conflict of interest of a cabinet minister any worse than that of a private member?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: You can disregard the rest of your speech.


Harold Thomas Herbert: If we are to examine what is going on in the House, we should look at what is going on in committees, at what members on the opposite side are doing in committees. They have a duty to perform to this country in committees, but where are they? They are all over the country doing other jobs, receiving other incomes. There is a real conflict of interest, and that is what I am dead against.
Until we face up to the truth of what is real conflict of interest, we will not go anywhere. That is why I want to see this green paper strengthened and toughened, and I want to see rules brought in so that there is no further doubt. If we are not accepting a man's word any more- and I am prepared to accept everybody's word-then let us
December 10, 1974

have a set of regulations that are so tight that no one will get away with it and no one will be able to be accused of conflict of interest. That is my objective, and that is why I am anxious to get on with the discussion of the green paper in committee.


John Douglas Reynolds: Would the hon. member answer a short question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That can only be done with the consent of the hon. member.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Douglas Reynolds: The hon. member quoted something out of a newspaper, and then he quoted some words. I know where the quotes were coming from, but can he tell us who was the speaker in the second quote?


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the gentleman has not read the green paper because, after my initial quotation, my other quotations were from the green paper which we are supposed to be studying tonight.


John Douglas Reynolds: The hon. member said he was quoting out of a newspaper.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be participating in this debate. Although we on this side will try to keep our speeches down to about 10 minutes, I will not find that very difficult because I do not want to make too many comments about the previous speaker, the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). Although one can get into a discussion on semantics about the honoured name of his constituency, I felt that part of his argument, to which I listened with great interest, fell within the confines of vaudeville because obviously there must be a difference in the conflict of interest of a cabinet minister and that of a member of parliament due to the difference in their responsibilities and duties and in the exercise of discretion between the two. If the hon. member does not appreciate that, then to have a meaningful debate on this subject will become very difficult indeed.
Having said that, let me say that I fully agree with the hon. member that this is not a simple situation of resolving whether a member is to be here full-time or part-time. During the hon. member's speech someone interjected, "How about farmers and fishermen?" We could even mention lady members of parliament involved in the women's liberation movement.
This whole matter is so involved and complicated that obviously it must be considered in committee. As to cabinet ministers, there have been some remarks made by members opposite regarding different attitudes and responsibilities of cabinet ministers and members of parliament in this chamber and in the Mother of Parliaments.
To have listened to some of the comments here and in the question period during the last two or three days defies description. I must say that I am glad that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) and the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury) came back to the House. If there was any revelation at all on the problem of conflict of interest it was in the latter's question to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).
Conflict of Interest
He asked if the definition of conflict of interest was, in effect, a participation in public office for private gain. If that is the hon. minister's concept of this debate he is revealed in his nakedness of knowledge on this subject more than the emperor who was wearing no clothes.
Obviously while profit could be a factor, it is the public perception of the office that is important. It would be just the same thing if a doctor, who was an eminent citizen in a town, owned and operated a funeral parlor. There would be a public perception on the part of the citizens as to whether the doctor was discharging his full duty under the laws of medicine-dependent on the business that might be going on in the funeral parlor! But I would repeat that it is the public perception of the office that is important.
In that respect, Mr. Speaker, and because communications has been my responsibility under my leader in this party, I have a matter to bring before this House. This is the proper place to bring up the matter of the interests of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson). I sent him notice of my intention to raise the question, and I am glad to see he is in the House.
I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that anything I say in the next few minutes will not be intended to reflect in any way on my personal relationships and associations with the minister. But I feel very sincerely that having had six years and five months to divest himself, either by blind trust or frozen trust, of shares in the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company Limited, and having failed to do so, he comes within the area of conflict of interest. He is a minister of the Crown, and an agency of the Crown, the CRTC, is involved with licence applications. I might add that there are three shareholders in the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company Limited.
The minister was first appointed to cabinet on July 6, 1968, when he was made minister of defence production. He then became in turn minister of supply and services, minister of transport and communications, which was very directly connected with the whole question of assignment of radio frequencies and the technical studies that determine whether there should be a radio station, and now he is Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, which department has many interests in eastern Canada and has contractual relationships with the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company, Limited through advertising, as well as with the other media in Atlantic Canada.
I am not digging into the history of the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company, Limited, Mr. Speaker, although I appreciate that at the moment some epithets are being thrown back and forth between the former premier of Newfoundland, the only living father of Confederation, Mr. Smallwood, with allegations about how the company was formed, and Mr. Pickersgill, and the minister. The CBC took a long time to get to St. John's, finally getting there in 1964.
As I have pointed out already, there are three shareholders in the company. The minister's brother has one share, Mr. Jeff Stirling has 151 shares, and the minister has 148 shares or 49.33 per cent of the total shares, so he has a natural and substantive interest in the undertaking.

December 10, 1974
Conflict of Interest
In the six years and five months that the minister has been in cabinet, applications have been before the CRTC in proper form for TV licences initially, or for renewals, or for an increase in the power output for radio stations. There have been 17 applications affecting television stations, and ten affecting radio stations owned by the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company, Limited.
There has been no effort by the minister to divest himself of his interest in that company through a blind or frozen trust, and this must affect the public perception. I fully appreciate his difficulties in trying to make arrangements to take care of something that has been his lifelong work and to take care of his family. This is part of the difficulty, and it is why no questions were raised in the House for two or three years about the problem as it affects cabinet ministers from time to time.
Senator Keith Davey pinpointed New Brunswick, and said there is monopoly ownership of newspapers in that province by K. C. Irving-even though some of them are marginal operations and could not keep going unless Irving underwrote them. But I wonder if the same rules do not apply to these applications for extensions, renewals, new licences or increased power output of the radio and television station that I mentioned. In effect, there is a monopoly of radio and television by the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company, Limited. I do not impute anything of a criminal nature to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to read to the House part of a letter which Mr. Pearson wrote to his ministers on November 30, 1964, in which he said:
.. . equally ... a minister must not have a pecuniary interest that could even remotely conflict with the discharge of his public duty.
I think it is clear that a minister of the Crown, let alone a minister of transport and communications, who had something to do with radio and television licence applications of the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company, Limited did have an involvement in the discharge of his duties with that company which had contractual relationships with the government in which he sits as a prominent and respected member. This is one of the reasons why I think we have to look at the whole question of the involvement of ministers. Obviously the higher the duty the higher the responsibility, and there should be definite guidelines.
If the government is intent on opening this matter up, an answer to my question on the order paper of November 15, asking about contractual relationships and the number of successful applications, would have helped.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) also has a question on the order paper directed to the Minister of Supply and Services inquiring about his contractual relationship and interest in Avis, Canada before it was sold to Avis in the United States.
Because of a minister's responsibilities there is a higher duty on him in the exercise of his discretion. Members must appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, before they can talk meaningfully about the conflicts that exist at times of members of this House of Commons.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) for giving me notice of his intention to participate in this debate and to raise the issue of my holdings in the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company. I sincerely appreciate what he did, and I am sure his action reflects a mutual desire to reach an understanding on these matters that is satisfactory and meets the high standards of this House.
I welcome the opportunity to respond, not merely because the issue affects me personally, but because in a much wider context it gives me the opportunity to deal with a question which can, from time to time, affect other hon. members.
At the outset let me emphasize what I have said many times before. Since entering public life I have not been involved in any way, and I emphasize this, in the operations of the company concerned. Upon entering the cabinet in 1968, I immediately ceased to be a director or officer of the company. At that time also-and I think this is important-I sought means of placing my holdings in some form of trust, not because there was any legal requirement that I do so, but because I considered it the appropriate thing to do in the circumstances. Such a trust was in fact drawn up at my request and I have scrupulously honoured ever since the spirit of that document, as many people, including, I sincerely believe, some of my friends opposite, can attest.
The problem, and now I come to the central issue which, as I said, can affect other hon. members from time to time, is that in many cases where undertakings are licensed by some federal authority or agency, shareholders are specifically prohibited from assigning their rights to a third party. I emphasize that point because it is essential to this particular issue. In many instances where undertakings are licensed by some federal agency, shareholders are specifically prohibited from assigning their rights to a third party. This, as hon. members well know, is the case in broadcasting and, so far as I have been able to determine, in several other fields under federal jurisdiction such as, for example, certain activities regulated by the CTC and similar bodies. Thus a member or minister, in entering into a trust to eliminate even the appearance of one potential conflict, would find himself in violation of a federal law or regulation. That is precisely the position in which I found myself.
I hope that hon. members viewing this issue objectively-I emphasize objectively, because I believe that is what we are trying to do in this debate-will see its very wide ramifications. It is my opinion that the committee should examine this issue and recommend appropriate means whereby members of this House and others in similar circumstances-and I am referring, although they are perhaps not as relevant to this debate, to senior public servants and the like-can be relieved of this particular requirement relating to federally licensed businesses.
There is another reason why I believe it to be desirable. Persons such as myself, with holdings in licensed undertakings^-and I am sure that members of the legal profes-
December 10, 1974

sion know this-are not free to sell such holdings except with the permission of the licensing authority, in this case the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. In ordinary circumstances this is a sensible regulation and I believe, if my memory serves me right, that my hon. friend from Annapolis Valley and I both voted for it in committee some years ago. So I have no quarrel here and, if the hon. member's memory is as good as I think it is, he will concede that we both agreed on that point. So the proposition that the CRTC should have the right to approve a sale is sensible. In ordinary circumstances there is no problem with it. However, for members of parliament and ministers that proposition has created real, indeed almost insuperable difficulties, as I have discovered.
In the first place a sale requires negotiations with one or more of the potential buyers. That is demonstrably true, it seems to me. I would not consider it proper for a shareholder, particularly for a minister, in those circumstances to carry on such negotiations personally. To do so would certainly offend against the spirit of what we have always believed to be a proper guide of conduct for members and ministers in this House. I should like the committee to consider this inhibition, this difficulty placed in front of each of us, whether as private members or as ministers.
Second, even if such negotiations were carried out successfully by the party concerned, the CRTC is under no requirement to approve a sale or to accept a particular buyer as being satisfactory. This is the law of the land. I mention it in the context of the CRTC, but my belief is that it applies to other regulatory agencies where similar circumstances prevail.
In my case, faced with this dilemma, I wrote to a trusted friend a year and a half ago asking him to accept full authority from me to negotiate the sale of my holdings, making it abundantly clear that, if he accepted, there would be no consultation with me and that I would be fully prepared to agree to whatever arrangements he could work out himself.
The gentleman in question-and I hasten to add that he is in no way related to me, nor do I have any business connections with him-was prepared to accept the assignment, for which I am extremely grateful because it is not easy to find someone ready to accept that kind of responsibility. Since that time the only information with which he has provided me is that in December, 1973, an offer to purchase my holdings was filed as required with the Canadian Television and Radio Commission. As hon. members know, it is for the commission, and for the commission alone to determine the scheduling of its deliberations and to date it has not heard the application. I suggest to hon. members that my judgment was correct in saying I would not consider it proper for me to request the commission to accommodate me, and therefore I have made no contact with them whatever.
Hon. members might well consider, during their deliberations, whether it would be appropriate to suggest to the CRTC and to other licensing authorities that special arrangements might apply in cases such as I have outlined. I believe, if I may say this in parenthesis, that a member of this House, be he a minister or otherwise,
Conflict of Interest
should probably have the right to request a licensing agency, whatever it might be, to give some kind of priority attention to matters of this nature.
From my point of view I have been in the hands of the CRTC for over a year with no opportunity whatever, other than one which might well be considered an improper intervention, to ask the CRTC to deal with this matter expeditiously. These are the facts of the matter. They are on record, and they are clear for everyone to see. I am most anxious to have this matter dealt with expeditiously. In the meantime, I have, of course, complied with the conflict of interest guidelines.
As a matter of fact since my holdings have been a matter of public record each year in the CRTC report, there has been full disclosure; whatever argument there may be among hon. members about full disclosure it certainly cannot apply in this case. There has been full disclosure, and the option I exercised was a perfectly natural one for me to exercise under the guidelines. I am pleased to have the opportunity to repeat what I have said many times publicly-that I have never in my years of public life sought in any way to benefit from my position. Quite the contrary, as the chairman of the CRTC can attest if any member cares to get in touch with him, my only representation to him, since entering parliament, has been in the course of efforts to get CBC service into remote parts of Newfoundland and other distant areas, and I am confident that all members will agree that this is part of my responsibility as a member of the House and that, indeed, far from reflecting some kind of personal interest it was, if anything the reverse-we are talking about small repeaters which are not significant from a profit point of view. I was trying to get the CBC to move more rapidly than it has in reaching people in remote parts of the country, and I am sure no one will accuse me of conflict of interest in that kind of situation.
I should say, too, that the chairman of the CRTC, who is known generally and widely respected by every member of the House as an independent and conscientious public servant, has already stated publicly on several occasions that I have never attempted even to discuss with him any matter being dealt with by the commission.
I respect the hon. member for Annapolis Valley for making the distinction this afternoon between matters which relate to my responsibilities as a minister and matters affecting my responsibilities as a member of parliament-those touching my constituents. I say to him that no person I am aware of can state I ever discussed any other matter with the CRTC relating to my own province except those which had to do with service to remote areas, and if there is any doubt left in his mind I suggest the chairman of the CRTC be asked to confirm what I have said. Despite this, let me say in all sincerity that I shall be glad when the necessary CRTC hearing has been held and the matter disposed of, Mr. Speaker.
At the same time-and I am asking hon. members to consider soberly what I am saying-it is a case where the cost of public service can come high. Many hon. members, some of them sitting on the opposite benches as well as on this side of the House, know what it is like to build a business from scratch-there are others who know this is precisely what happened in the case in question. It can be

December 10, 1974
Conflict of Interest
a cause for regret, particularly in view of the uncertainties of public life when, for whatever reasons, the necessity arises to dispose of it. In my years here I have found that we, as members, must retain a mutual respect for each other's integrity. Without this an already arduous and difficult career in the service of the country would be doubly difficult, even impossible. That is why I took the steps I have outlined. It is why I now urge the committee to examine the general questions I have raised. I am confident that if it does so an equitable solution can be found.
For my part, any or all of the documents to which I have referred, namely, the assignment of the right to dispose of my assets and the acceptance of that right, the trust agreement, which as I have emphasized was indeed an illegal document in the sense that it was not permissible according to the CRTC, evidence that it was executed in 1968, and anything else to demonstrate that the outline I have given today is a factual one, are available to any member who cares to contact me, for this issue this really illustrates not so much the quandary of a particular person but the very definite gap in the present arrangements regarding conflict of interest.
Anything that I can do in this regard to help resolve the matter, I shall do. I mean, resolve it not for me, because I believe I have resolved it honestly and totally so far as the CRTC is concerned-the next step is up to them-but to resolve the question for members generally who may, indeed unwittingly, be parties to a licensed organization as a result of which they are not able to deal in total freedom with their assets. I shall be more than willing to assist them in that project.
In conclusion let me say once again that I am glad I have had this opportunity to dispose of a situation which has been, to say the least, embarrassing. I say embarrassing in the sense that although I have been doing the right thing, with no question in my mind or in my conscience, I nevertheless realize that here there was potentially a question in the minds of other people. If I can help dispose of this issue and assist myself and others in getting rules which will provide a simple means of resolving this kind of conflict, and which above everything else will ensure that people are not prevented from entering public life in these kinds of circumstances, then it seems to me that it is worth while to do so. I for my part am quite prepared to co-operate in whatever technique or methods the House, in its wisdom, decides to employ.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Annapolis Valley rising to ask a question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if I may. I certainly appreciate the minister's remarks tonight, and it is that mutual respect for each other's integrity which made my remarks prior to the supper hour somewhat sensitive, and I am glad I did not encroach too far.
The whole dilemma confronting us in this debate today is not that of the respect that I might hold for the minister as a minister, or as a colleague, or in the corridors as a friend; the dilemma we face is the public's perception of

what we do here, either officially as members, as government leaders or-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is hardly asking a question. I wish he would come to his question now.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am coming to my question. For this reason I should like to ask the minister two questions. First, when the offer to purchase was made in 1973-and I can understand the minister's hesitation in trying to expedite it-why did the agent not expedite it? Secondly, so that full public disclosure is made here tonight even before we get to committee, would the minister do his utmost, with his colleagues on the treasury benches, to answer the questions that I have on the order paper?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first question, I am sure the hon. member can see the point. Once I have assigned responsibility to the agent, surely I ought not to instruct the agent what to do. I assure the hon. member there was no relationship at all between us regarding this matter.
I should also point out on the broader question that it is not unusual, as I understand it, for matters before the commission to drag on for a year or more. Indeed, I saw only yesterday that it was passing down judgments from June of last year, so I think the hon. member is aware that the time span is a long one.
With regard to the second query about the questions on the order paper, a rather broad area is involved here. I hope the questions will be answered to the extent they can be, but this afternoon my hon. friend raised a question, and since it was rather broad I hope the House will permit me to answer it at some length.
The question is rather general in the sense that it asks what constitutes a contract. For example, references were made to various departments for which I have had responsibility. To the best of my knowledge there were no such contracts. There may well have been, for instance, an advertising campaign relating to safe driving or to the breathalyzer test or something of that nature, which presumably was placed by an advertising agency, but I can assure the hon. member, again without qualification, that there was no influence on my part. Quite the contrary.
This also seems to me to raise a question to which I suggest the committee address itself, namely, a clearer definition of what actually represents a contract between the "Crown" and a member of parliament or anybody else. Does it in fact extend, for example, to Air Canada, or to the Wheat Board in its permit book system with the farmers? What is a contract in those terms? I do not profess to have the answer, but I can assure the hon. member that from my point of view it will be answered to the best of our ability.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in following the minister I want to echo the words he just used and assure him, as I am sure all other members in this House will be quick to assure him, that our deliberations in this House of Commons of Canada, if we are to serve the people of Canada who sent us here, do depend in
December 10, 1974

a profound way upon what the minister said-and I took his words down-"mutual respect for each other's integrity". I think that is something that all members of the House can find themselves in agreement with tonight.
There is also the question whether the public is going to have the respect for this chamber that we may well have for each other within it. We are dealing at a greater distance with the public, and that is why, in these matters of the public interest and the conflict that may be engendered not only by members of parliament and cabinet ministers but by public officials as well, it is incredibly important that it be seen by the public that there is no conflict of interest, so that the public has respect for our integrity.
The motion I rise to speak in favour of tonight, put by my leader, is that the committee be authorized to report on the aforementioned green paper after first considering and making recommendations on the subject matter of ministers and conflict of interest, and public servants and conflict of interest.
I had occasion a few weeks ago to raise the issue as to what is the obligation of a senior public official, a deputy minister, when he leaves the service of the government and gives his services to a private employer, or to a community interest for that matter. When I first raised the question with the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve), she was unaware that her own deputy minister was in fact leaving, or rather she knew he was leaving, but not to go into private business. Her suggestion was that the oath which that particular deputy minister had taken was sufficient to preserve all the proprieties.
On a later occasion I was able to raise this question with the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and on November 25 I said to the right hon. gentleman that in order to gain public confidence in the matter there should be a cooling off period from the time when a deputy minister or other high official leaves the service of the government and the time he is permitted to engage in private industry or business in the same area in which he has served the government.
The right hon. Prime Minister said this, and I quote from Hansard of November 25 at page 1618:
In so far as the question itself is concerned, the government did consider this alternative and it was rejected. I think if it were to apply to civil servants it would have to apply to all members of the House and we do not think that members of the House would want to apply that rule to themselves.
The Prime Minister then went on to say, and I think this is interesting because he recognized the problem:
. . . frankly I have no further solution to this difficulty and I see it as a real one. I do not think it is a practical alternative to suggest that when officials or ministers or for that matter civil servants or members of parliament, have departed from their particular employment that they be in some way restricted as to the use of their freedom. I would hope that their oath of secrecy and their innate honesty would guide them in the circumstances that the hon. member suggests.
That is all very well, but I think it is important to emphasize the words of the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) this afternoon, when he said:
These very capable public service people are going into the private sector, as we call it. I presume that in many cases they will go into jobs
Conflict of Interest
in the same field they dealt with in the government service. What guidelines are given to them on leaving the public service? Is there a system or a set of rules, or is each person who leaves the public service from these high levels left largely to the dictates of his conscience and to interpret the demands of the oath widely or narrowly?
I think what the Leader of the Opposition said has put the position very clearly. This matter has been the subject of discussion in the press, and at least two well-known observers on the political scene in Ottawa have reported on it. Perhaps it is proper to draw the attention of the House to an article by Maurice Western, which ended in this way:
The problem is that, without violating the oath, such former public servants can be extremely useful to private firms in dealing with the Government. They may well have been recruited for exactly that reason. It is altogether improbable that they will be asked to reveal (or would disclose) what was in such and such a minute or secret study. But they may well be asked for counsel. Would it be wise to proceed in a particular manner or to emphasize this or that in making a representation? How, in counselling a private firm in what may be a competitive enterprise, are they to shut out of their minds a whole experience?
That statement reflects the commonsense appreciation of the situation by most people in Canada.
In another article Mr. Phil Gibson touched on this problem in respect of a particular deputy minister who was being discussed. Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear at the time, and subsequently, that in raising the question of the retired Deputy Minister of the Environment I was in no way suggesting that his integrity was for one minute being questioned. Indeed, along with many of my colleagues and I am sure other members of the House, I have a tremendous regard for the public service he has given this country, especially in relation to his role in respect of Expo, and for the years he subsequently gave this country as the Deputy Minister of the Environment in his difficult task of forming a new department. That particular deputy minister has, I think quite properly, declined to comment.
Let me quote from the article by Mr. Gibson as follows:
However, he and others in similar situations might welcome a clarification of the accepted, official morality. Jack Cross, assistant clerk of the Privy Council, said he has known deposed or retiring cabinet ministers to ask for a copy of their oath. "We don't ask why they want to see it, but I suppose it gives them some indication how free they are."
There also appears to be some ambiguity over whether the oaths are legally binding once a person has left office. None of the four varieties of oaths makes specific reference to this possibility.
The public service oath, which applies to deputy ministers, states simply: "I solemnly and sincerely swear that I will faithfully and honestly fulfill the duties that devolve upon me by reason of my employment in the public service and that I will not, without due authority in that behalf, disclose or make known any matter that comes to my knowledge by reason of such employment. So help me God."
Even Cross, who has kept track of scores of oaths in 30 years at the Privy Council office, is unsure of their applicability, although he adds: "It would be ridiculous not to have it apply after leaving office."
The fact of the matter is that events have changed over the years, and the tremendous position of power that senior public servants acquire as a result of their duties, and the tremendously important knowledge they carry with them when they leave these duties give an inside track to those public servants when they go into the private sector and have to deal with the government departments, agencies, licensing authorities and fund raising authorities, and that affects the public interest.

December 10, 1974
Conflict of Interest
There has been debate today as to what "public interest" means. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) asked whether it meant when you used your own public office to your own private advantage? It does mean that, but it means something else as well. It means whether your activities give you, or the people you work with, an advantage over other members of the public who are expected to come before the government, its agencies, its regulatory offices, its licensing bureaus and its financial granting offices with complete equality with any other group or citizen that is applying.
It is interesting that this issue is raised at a time when a number of deputy ministers are retiring. The Deputy Minister of the Environment is leaving, the Deputy Minister of Finance for the past four and a half years is leaving, the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is retiring, as well as others. One of my colleagues reminds me that the Deputy Minister of Agriculture is also retiring.
It seems to me that at time when a number of deputy ministers are withdrawing from public service it becomes very important that the government immediately lay down guidelines and stipulations as to what their freedom of operations is after they leave the public service, and whether there should be a period-I call it a cooling off period-so they do not take with them, to use in a situation of immediacy, the knowledge they acquired in the service of all the public. It is interesting that the right hon. Prime Minister when answering me seemed to suggest that this alternative had been disposed of or rejected by the government as not being practical.
I am indebted to a citizen who wrote me, a Mr. V. H. Coley from the province of Alberta. He had this to say:
Ten or twelve years ago I worked for the C.N. Express in the bond department, working in the Federal Building on 107th St. We gave in bond shipments to the customs and when they were cleared delivered them. The gossip was that appraisers or men who worked in the customs long room assessing duty and sales tax, if they resigned from the service, were not allowed to work as or for customs brokers for one year, to remove the edge they had.
I ask hon. members to keep in mind what that citizen said. To quote him again, he said, "to remove the edge they had". Discussions were held with some officials in that particular department, and one of them said something interesting. He said that this requirement was "in order to remove the potency of the information which they have accumulated". It is interesting that indeed such regulations do exist. I shall cite for the benefit of all hon. members the regulations respecting the licensing of Custom house brokers. These regulations were promulgated in April, 1960, and so far as I know are still in effect. In the qualifications for licence section in these regulations appears the following:
The Committee shall not recommend to the Minister the granting of a licence to an applicant unless the applicant satisfies the Committee that he ...
Then there are a number of things he must satisfy the committee about which are enumerated, following which item (f) reads:
(f) has not been an officer of the Customs and Excise Division of the Department within two years from the date of the application; and

(g) is not related either by birth or by marriage to an officer of the Customs and Excise Division of the Department.
It is difficult for me to understand, and I think it will be extremely difficult for the public to understand, why the customs officer cannot go out into the private sector and use his knowledge accumulated within the public service within two years, and yet a deputy minister with all the power that that position gives him, and all the influence it gives him in relation to other members of the community, can go out immediately and place himself in a position that the Parliament of Canada will not allow to an ordinary customs official.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: It is not just sufficient to say that this would be difficult, that it might create problems and that hon. members would not want to be restricted in what they can do. The fact of the matter is that the Parliament of Canada has already recognized this situation and enacted regulations. So, I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here tonight, but I would ask that someone bring this to his attention because it is extremely important that what we decide by law will apply to people away down the line should also apply to people in the most senior and powerful positions of the government of Canada.
It is my view, and I would urge it upon the government, that long before the time comes when it will be necessary to discuss the green paper and all its ramifications, in view of the fact there are increasingly more and more cases of senior public officials retiring and entering some sort of private life, that the government should now lay down some guidelines, which can be adjusted later if necessary, in order to clear up once and for all any doubt concerning whether or not these officials will leave the public service carrying with them an advantage which gives them an inside track against the interests of other members of the public, and in this way affect the public interest of our country.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. I am delighted with the intensity of the debate. I think it certainly reflects, so far as our party is concerned, the great respect we have for and the way in which we cherish this institution. We try to develop guidelines which show that justice not only is done but appears to be done.
One of the interesting things about the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson)-and clearly he has the respect of every member in this House-is that he missed during his eloquent defence of his position the point that justice not only must be done but must appear to be done in terms of this particular piece of legislation. I have heard arguments from both sides of this House which avoid the principal issue, which is the question of full disclosure. We are still skirting around, above, under and over it, but are not really getting to the question of full disclosure because what the public wants to know is what one has to hide. The public wants full disclosure.
There is no reason why we should have to become involved in blind trusts or frozen trusts. A blind trust works both ways. It is blind in respect of the person who
December 10, 1974

owns it, and it is also blind so far as the public is concerned in respect of knowing what is in it. This is what I mean that justice must appear to have been done, and the only way is by having full disclosure.
I have had an opportunity to look through about 69 pages of the green paper on conflict of interest. It so happens that I picked up a bill from the province of British Columbia which contains five pages, but which does more in respect of showing that justice is being done and appears to be done, than all the 69 pages in this green paper on conflict of interest. I might point out that that bill was passed in British Columbia in September of this year. It provides that every elected official in the province of British Columbia must disclose his assets, period, that those assets be made public and that the public have an opportunity to examine them. In that way the real question of conflict of interest is avoided, because if a cabinet minister who has control over the economy in a particular area discloses his assets, then I will respect him because I know he will make sure there is no apparent conflict of interest.
If we want to be sure that not only is justice done but that it appears to be done there is not a reason in the world why total disclosure should not be made of the assets of every member of this House.
I was very interested in the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on July 18 when he said this:
The government believes that no higher standards should be demanded of anyone than of ministers themselves.
That is a wonderful sentiment. I waited patiently to see it reflected somewhere, but it has not been reflected in anything. In fact the green paper sets a lower standard in respect of cabinet ministers than it does for members of the House of Commons. This is why at page 37 the committee that is to be appointed to study the question of conflict of interest is given wide powers except in this case:
The Committee may not investigate conflicts of interest of a Cabinet Minister if the alleged improprieties result from the exercise of his duties as a Minister of the Crown.
Why should we exclude ministers of the Crown from the inquiry of the committee while we include members of this House? It seems to me one could argue that lower standards are being set for ministers in spite of the very eloquent remarks of the Prime Minister, in which he indicated that ministers should have the highest standards.
I think we all agree that if we are going to do a service to the public we must see that justice appears to be done, and it can only appear to be done when the public knows that those assets are on the record and are disclosed.


An hon. Member:: Tell that to Mr. Barrett.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Let me tell the hon. member that it is Mr. Barrett who should be telling this government that, because the bill to which I am referring requires full disclosure from every elected official in British Columbia. It is that bill that this House should adopt if we want to be realistic about full disclosure.
Conflict of Interest
Before concluding my remarks I want to comment on the questions raised by the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) this afternoon in her remarkable defence of the failure to bring spouses under the bill, using women's rights as an excuse.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: If there is a group in this country that wants to see that justice is done and appears to be done to them and to everybody else, it is women. And they should be the first group, and I am sure they are, that would be critical of a minister that would use that argument to hide behind the failure to have proper conflict of interest guidelines. I do not need to deal too much more with that, because I think the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) dealt with it very successfully. In fact, she dealt with it so successfully that the next speaker said: "Let us not deal with women's rights any more, I think we have had enough", and I am sure they had.
I think that if you analysed that kind of argument, which is an elitist argument about women and which is the wrong argument to use-remember, when you are talking about women you talk about the most unemployed, the most on welfare-you find that they have interests besides whether they are going to marry cabinet ministers, and they have other worries than whether or not they have to disclose their assets.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jeanne Sauvé: I want to ask the hon. member how he thinks a cabinet minister will remain married if the condition of her being a cabinet minister is that her husband stops having a career?


John Edward Broadbent: It does not follow.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Let me say in answer to the question that there is an act called the married women's property act under which every woman who comes to marriage is entitled to own the property she brings to the marriage. If it is in her name, I am not interested in it, but I am damn interested in the property she acquires since the date of her marriage. I think that should be disclosed, and not to disclose it is a way of avoiding justice appearing to be done. That is all the public wants, and all that the House really wants.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: You are an old reactionary.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I am sorry that the hon. member for Vau-dreuil (Mr. Herbert) is not in the House, but it is he who said that the real reason for this debate today was not conflict of interest but to raise the question of the SIU.
The first time that those three letters were mentioned in the House in this debate was when the hon. member for Vaudreuil decided that was the time to mention them. I am surprised he bothered with it, but it is he who brought it into the debate. I must say, as one member who was not in the House when many of these questions were asked, that I have seen a lot of smoke but not very much fire. Perhaps we have had a little too much protest. I do not know why they want to raise that question in terms of

December 10, 1974
Conflict of Interest
conflict of interest guidelines. In any event, I must say that if the price of influence peddling is down to $500-


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That is just plain peddling.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: -then I would be very surprised. In any event, I will not deal in an extensive way with that subject, which was certainly canvassed extensively last week.
I want to conclude by urging the minister and the committee when they deal with this matter to have a look at frozen trusts and blind trusts, and then to have a look at full disclosure. Within those three principles you will find that the public is more interested in the disclosure of assets so that they know that justice is being done, and so that they have access to that information. Then parliament will receive the respect which ministers and members of parliament deserve. But until we are ready to take that step we have not gone far enough in terms of conflict of interest legislation.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened a few moments ago to a very eloquent speech by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), but I want to say to him that the very fact that he felt compelled to stand in the House and make the speech which he did is one of the strongest arguments that could have been put for the support by his party of the amendment that has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: It was an eloquent speech, and I rather felt for him-I say this to him directly-because he confessed on the floor of the House-


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Not confessed.


John Edward Broadbent: Admitted.


Walter David Baker: Let me finish that phrase. He confessed on the floor of the House to feeling a sense of embarrassment in the situation in which he found himself, albeit as he argued, and we could examine that argument later, he was compelled by law into this situation. But it is that very sense of embarrassment that a minister of the Crown should feel, and which this minister has confessed he did feel, which is the strongest possible argument for the amendment we have moved.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that in dealing with questions of morality or justice, in the fair and equitable manner in which the minister asks us to deal with those questions, the place to start is not in the complicated and difficult area of the member of parliament, the backbencher, but in the clear area of ministers of the Crown. That is the reason that we have put this amendment. But for all his eloquence the minister did not answer the argument that was made earlier today by the Leader of the Opposition. I think the proposition put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is unassailable, namely, that the higher the position, the greater the duty to ensure not only the existence of morality in public life but the appearance of the existence of morality in public

life. That is the plain unvarnished reason for the amendment which we have moved.
I want to say to the House that I have been astounded by the speech of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) and by the fact that he should say what he did and say it in the way he did, completely misinterpreting the line of debate that we have tried to bring forward today. But I was astounded more by the government House leader who, on December 6 in the House, appeared to argue that the special position of cabinet ministers, their special privileges, the important access they have to knowledge, do not place a cabinet minister in a higher position than a backbencher in the House. I cannot accept that argument, and no one else can accept that argument. That is not to say that a backbencher's duties ought not to be examined, but surely in the year 1974 we have not come to the position in this country-particularly this country- when people with these extraordinary powers and privileges do not carry with them a special duty in the exercise of their privileges. That is the point of the amendment that we put forward, Mr. Speaker.
Some hon. members in this House today have dealt with public servants. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) said that the guidelines that were produced on December 18, 1973, with respect to the public service were not sufficient. I think he has a point, and the committee would have to look into it. It is worth noting what the guidelines say. Section 2 reads:
It is by no means sufficient for a person in a position of responsibility in the public service to act within the law. There is an obligation not simply to obey the law but to act in a manner so scrupulous that it will bear the closest public scrutiny.
Surely if that is the duty of the public servant who merely advises a minister, then the minister who has the ultimate power to dispense has a much higher duty. That is the point of this amendment, Mr. Speaker. That is why I think the government ought to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the thoughtful amendment he has put, and why the government, men and women, ought to stand up and support that amendment. They should not hide behind the smokescreen of women's rights or the smokescreen that was raised by the government House leader on December 6, or something that I would not dignify with the name of smokescreen, and that is the speech of the hon. member for Vaudreuil.
The responsibility lies upon all of us to take our duties in our hands, recognizing that if we are to codify what is right in the eyes of the people of this country we ought to start where the responsibility is greatest and the duty is highest, namely, with ministers of the Crown. I ask the government to support the amendment on that basis.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in considering this question of conflict of interest I think it is generally agreed that the important thing for members of the government is that they should not at any time be in a position where they can increase the value of their holdings by means of decisions they take in the particular spheres of activity which come under their direction as ministers of the Crown.
December 10, 1974

One way that has been suggested of meeting this problem is that a minister should put his or her investments into a frozen trust. This is definitely not a satisfactory solution to the problem, because although the minister cannot change his or her securities, he or she knows what those securities are, and the value of them can be affected very materially by decisions the minister may take if the operations of the company concerned come under his or her particular responsibility.
Another suggestion that has been put forward for meeting this problem is that a minister should put his securities into a blind trust where the owner is unaware of any changes made in the portfolio from time to time. Mr. Speaker, this method is equally impractical for meeting this very serious problem. Any member of this House who is a practical man or woman will realize that no agent into whose care such investments are entrusted will make any change in a portfolio without first checking with the owner through a third or fourth party. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, a blind trust becomes nothing more than a frozen trust and, as I have said, that is not a satisfactory solution. We should ask ourselves then what is a practical method of handling this very real problem which all governments face?
To begin with, for many years in the parliament of Canada it has been an unwritten rule that because of the great influence which the position of the Minister of Finance has on business affairs throughout the country, upon taking over his portfolio such minister should divest himself of all common stocks, and invest the funds that are realized through those sales in government bonds. I believe this procedure should become a formal requirement for the Minister of Finance, and also for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, because of the great influence their decisions have on the value of common stocks generally.
I also think that it is obvious that the Minister of Transport upon taking over his portfolio should divest himself of any stocks in transport companies. I believe too that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should divest himself of any stocks in energy or mining operations upon taking office. As well, the stocks of any minister of the government which could possibly come under his own jurisdiction in the operation of the companies concerned, should be sold and the funds realized placed in some other investment. In this way when carrying out the duties within their responsibility, ministers would be free of suspicion of influencing in any way the value of stocks in companies which came under their particular department's authority.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe that all ministers should declare their holdings in a written statement to the President of the Privy Council, and notify him by letter of any change that is made in their holdings. This would enable the President of the Privy Council, as the watchdog of the operations of cabinet-because the Prime Minister is obviously too busy to concern himself with details of this kind-to make sure that no changes are made in any portfolio as a result of cabinet discussions regarding various areas of business activity.
An obvious example of this is, of course, the discussions on the budget, in which all members take part before it is
Conflict of Interest
presented to parliament. In this way the holdings of cabinet ministers would not become public knowledge, and of course there is no justifiable reason why they should become public knowledge. It would also ensure that ministers would be precluded from making an increase in the value of their holdings due to information available only to them before an economic event takes place.
Finally, I wish to speak about cabinet ministers receiving gifts from those whose operations come within their jurisdiction. It is obvious that all ministers must be careful not to allow themselves to be put in a position in which it might appear that their decisions are influenced by the gifts they have received. If a minister is so foolish as to allow himself to be put in such a position, he has demonstrated that he did not possess sufficient judgment and common sense to warrant his appointment to the cabinet in the first place. Unfortunately, several members of cabinet have demonstrated just that in the past few days.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me make it clear that the questions I have directed to the ministry and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during past months to do with conflict of interest guidelines for ministers, and the sentiments which prompted my participation in this debate tonight, have nothing to do with any fishing expedition relating to any individual minister.
If any person wishes to be overly dramatic and suggest that I make specific charges either inside or outside the House, let me say I have none to make. I repeat, what I have to say does not involve any fishing expedition relating to the morality of the cabinet in general or any individual minister in particular. However, let me say that the conflict of interest guidelines proposed by the Prime Minister are nothing less than an insult to our intelligence. My remarks tonight will pertain purely to those guidelines, as they relate to ministers of the Crown.
No person, be he eventually a minister of the Crown or an ordinary member of parliament, swears an oath of proverty when he decides to run for public life. As the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) suggested, assets accumulated from the practice of a profession or private business should not bar one from public life. We are wrestling with that problem in Canada, and they are wrestling with it in the administration of the United States and the United States Congress.


An hon. Member:: But that is a different situation.


William Heward Grafftey: I know the situation is different, but we are still wrestling with it. Just as judges, school teachers, rabbis, priests and other ministers of religion adhere to certain standards which are not ambivalent, so should members of parliament. Although we should not swear an oath of poverty, we should swear to serve the people in the truest and best fashion. For this reason I suggest that conflict of interest rules as proposed by the Prime Minister should be up-to-date and meaningful.
I was interested to hear the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion say how hard it is to build up a private business. I felt almost sorry for him as he pleaded. How-

December 10, 1974
Conflict of Interest
ever, Mr. Speaker, most businessmen do not have the help of people like Mr. Smallwood. The minister should give the former premier of Newfoundland credit for his help in building up that private business. Let us call a spade a spade, and come clean with the Canadian people.
The differences between ordinary members and ministers of the Crown have been spelled out by members who have spoken this afternoon and this evening. The Prime Minister has tacitly admitted that there is a clear-cut difference between conflicts of interest involving ministers of the Crown and ordinary members of Parliament. In typical government fashion he has set up a bureaucracy in the Privy Council office which is to deal with this question, thereby admitting tacitly that there is a difference as between private members of parliament and ministers of the Crown. That is the basis for the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).
Let us begin and put first things first. Call a spade a spade. To pretend that ministers of the Crown are not privy to information which is not available to ordinary members, is folly. I suppose, under the Prime Minister's proposed conflict of interest rules, ordinary members of the House will have to parade to the Privy Council office and build up the bureaucracy which has been established to deal with ministers of the Crown. I suggest that the obvious repository of declaration of members of parliament is the Clerk of the House, under Mr. Speaker.
Having said that, let me show why the Prime Minister's proposed guidelines are a mockery and an insult to the intelligence of members and of the Canadian people in general. The green paper suggests that a minister will not be involved in a conflict of interest if he holds no more than 5 per cent of the stock of a company. Anyone who is familiar with the sorts of shares traded on the Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto stock exchanges knows that anyone who controls even 3 per cent of the shares of any major company has effective control of that company. Yet the economic wizards advising the Prime Minister suggest that a 5 per cent holding will not involve any conflict of interest. Such loose thinking in relation to proposed guidelines is not acceptable.
Some hon. members have alluded to frozen trusts and blind trusts. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings (Mr. Hees) has talked about obvious loopholes concerning blind trusts. What about frozen trusts? Any minister involved in this situation may say that what is in a frozen trust is nobody's business but his own. He knows what is in the trust. While the assets are frozen, he might still be involved in a blatant conflict of interest, in view of his activities as a minister of the Crown.
It is not good enough to say a trust is frozen. A trust can be frozen, but the stock or assets can still increase in value; yet nobody except the minister involved will know about this, and this knowledge will remain unknown unless investigative research work is done. What will happen if one goes to the Privy Council office? Nothing, because nobody is allowed to know what is in a blind trust, except the minister involved. Obviously he knows what is in the trust.
But the real reason, Mr. Speaker, brought up time and time again by the Leader of the Opposition, the pith and substance if you will of why the guideline rules are absolutely meaningless, is because they do not include spouses. I have asked the Prime Minister time and time again if during the period he gave individual ministers to put their affairs in order he could assure the House that no minister transferred to his or her spouse assets which, if held by the minister in question, would have placed him in a position of conflict of interest.
I was ruled out of order this morning with regard to this question. I want an answer tonight. Where is the Prime Minister during this debate?


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


William Heward Grafftey: All the ministers do is laugh. The Canadian people are asking these questions through me. Did any minister, during the time he or she was given to put his or her affairs in order by the Prime Minister, transfer assets to his or her spouse which if held by him or her would place him or her in a position of conflict of interest? How many many times do I have to ask that question? Oh, I see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) looking at me quizzically, but he has enough knowledge of economics to know what I am talking about, I hope. The Canadian people will not be satisfied-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I was just wondering whether the hon. gentleman, in his enthusiasm, recognized that I am a widower.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: I already made it quite clear at the beginning of my remarks that I was not on a fishing expedition. I don't know, maybe I have lost my sense of humour, but I didn't find that all that funny. Well, hon. members opposite laugh, but do they really feel the Canadian people are that stupid, to see the man who has the senior elective office in this country come and say, "Look at your great guidelines for conflict of interest of ministers." They don't even include spouses. He gives the ministers for ever and a day, while he builds up a big bureaucracy in the Privy Council offices, to put their affairs in order. The Leader of the Opposition time and time again asked why spouses and next of kin are not included in these great new guidelines. And until the government comes clean with this House and with the Canadian people we are going to persist in our questioning, because the government must not only be honest it must seem to be honest.
Why have all these blind trusts, open trusts, the big bureaucracy in the Privy Council, but not including spouses? Can the Prime Minister come and join this debate? I was ruled out of order this afternoon on the ground that the Prime Minister would be here in the House to answer in this debate. Well, where is he? And if I ask that question tomorrow, will he guarantee this House that, during the time he gave ministers to put their affairs in order, no assets were transferred to spouses to avoid individual conflict of interest? That is what I want to know. That is what this House wants to know. That is what the Canadian people want to know.

December 10, 1974

The only kind of declaration that will satisfy the Canadian people and this House is an open and complete declaration by ministers of the Crown of all their holdings, and not all the blind trusts, open trusts, frozen trusts-sending the press up to the Privy Council offices on a wild goose hunt to find nothing. What have you got to hide?


Jeanne Sauvé: Nothing.


William Heward Grafftey: You say nothing. Then tell us. If it is nothing, then let us see. Because only with this kind of open and full declaration will the Canadian people and this House be satisfied, and will the government led by the right hon. Prime Minister have played a leadership role in some small way in making this institution a little more meaningful.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We have just listened to some real oratory and some excellent positive suggestions by the member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey).
I think that in taking part in a debate of this nature, in the ten minutes allotted to me I might just lay what I would call an introduction. I think that we as Canadians can be proud, looking over our history, and at the various governments-we have had two kinds to date, Liberals on the one hand and Conservatives on the other

that we have been fortunate to have experienced relatively few scandals of any significance which pertain to conflict of interest.
The first thing to remember is that no matter what rules we may lay down, the morality of the people themselves who serve in this chamber is of primary importance. I cannot forget the lessons I learned in political science from George Britnell, who was a great political scientist in the Province of Saskatchewan. He said you can legislate anything, but you can never really legislate morality. So I think that really the first few words that are necessary to set the tone for what I have to say are that we have been very fortunate in the kind of Canadians who have come here, and who are representative of Canadians everywhere in every segment of society; and our scandals as we look over history have been pretty unimportant. We have, therefore, been pretty fortunate and we can be quite proud as Canadians.
I think the most important part of this debate arises out of the amendment moved by our leader. I would hope, looking at it, that having been considered by both sides of the House, it would receive unanimous consent and endorsement. To my mind, if that happened it would be monumental because the first thing to do is to differentiate between the responsibilities of a cabinet minister and of a member of parliament.
All of us realize that to become members of parliament under our particular system of government we must first be elected. But when we are appointed cabinet ministers our responsibilities become entirely different from those of ordinary members. I want to draw a few illustrations, because you can use rhetoric but you need to get down to brass tacks when you are considering the difference between a cabinet minister and a member of parliament.
Conflict of Interest
Let us take a few examples. Consider the Bank Act. Members of the cabinet are the first to know whether they are going to take the 6 per cent ceiling off interest rates. They are privy to this knowledge long before other members of parliament. A cabinet minister is armed with knowledge that no other member of parliament possesses. Anyone with any knowledge of business knows that once interest rates are free the price of bank stock is bound to increase. We saw this very thing happen when the Bank Act was changed, when the interest rate was allowed to run free and the ceiling of 6 per cent was removed. The value of the stock increased. Even on the market today, in its most depressed state since 1970, the values of bank shares are still greater on the Toronto and Montreal stock exchanges than they were on the day it was announced that the Bank Act would be changed.
Another good example is in the field of transportation. The Minister of Transport and his cabinet colleagues were the first to know that a big airport was to be built and that, as a consequence, a great deal of property would be expropriated. Of course if land is to be expropriated it is subject to changes in value. This is why there have to be rules for ministers to prevent them making substantial sums of money either for themselves or their friends.
One hon. member talked about running a country which had a budget of $26 billion. That is a large amount; of course the government is the largest enterprise that we have in this country. But we also have people who are privy to knowledge concerning the gross national product, which is subject to changes in the field of taxation, to decisions made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and other ministers, which affect the shares of corporations. Thus people are armed with this knowledge This is why we need men and women who have sufficient integrity not to use this information for their material gain and enrichment.
The amendment now before the House is suggesting that we start at the top, where the decisions are made, when it comes to dealing with conflict of interest. I think it is a monumental suggestion, and I hope it receives 100 per cent support. Surely we can forget partisan viewpoints in this regard. It was this party that initially suggested this debate, and it was the government House leader who came forth with a motion. Our leader came forth with an amendment that is practical from the point of view of dealing seriously and responsibly with this question of conflict of interest.
The second point I want to make, which is most important in terms of the cabinet, concerns the image of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The Prime Minister of this country must always set an example. If he is ever careless in so far as a conflict of interest is concerned, or if he leaves a wrong impression or does something that gives a wrong impression, his image suffers.
I should like to pay a compliment to two prime ministers who served during the time I have served. I refer to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who, whatever the critics said about him, was above reproach in regard to setting an example of the kind I have mentioned; and to the prime minister before him,

December 10, 1974
Conflict of Interest
Louis St. Laurent, who had the same character and integrity. Such example, of course, sets the tone of the cabinet itself.
When the vote comes tonight I hope we will have the support of hon. members for the amendment. We should differentiate between cabinet minister and backbenchers. Backbenchers do have some knowledge when bills come before them or when facts are given to the House, but cabinet ministers are decision makers and are privy to knowledge long before parliament.
I sit here day after day, and what I object to, when questions are asked, are cabinet ministers who leave the impression with the media that there is no difference between privy councillors and ordinary members of parliament. I am not fond of the term "backbencher". A lot of people who use the term "front bencher" and "backbencher" seem to think it denotes where a member sits. As I understand British political history, a frontbencher is a privy councillor. Whether he sits in the back row or in the front row, he is equally a member of parliament. However, there is a difference between a member of the cabinet and a member of parliament when it comes to questions of conflict of interest.
I hope that whatever rules are laid down there will be no straitjacket. I agree with my hon. friend that a blind trust, or that putting stock in what is called a frozen trust, is no real, solid solution. We need sound rules. In order to play baseball or football we must lay down the rules of the game, so the game can be played properly and responsibly. Any member of this House can suggest a rule or put something down in writing, but one thing I have learned as a lawyer is that if a person in his own conscience sets out to do wrong and intends to do wrong, no matter what is written in a document or in all of the statute books, that person will do wrong.
I hope that whatever rules are laid down, whether for cabinet ministers or for members of parliament, there will not be a straitjacket in any sense of that word. I come back to my opening remark, that the strength of the question whether we allow our public interests to conflict with our personal interests depends upon the integrity, calibre and character of the men and women who are elected to this place. Since I have only ten minutes and I see my time has already elapsed, I should like to hear from some of my colleagues in this connection.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to take part in the debate. This debate is all the more important as it comes a few days after the discussion of the topic which has aroused Canadian public opinion, and stirred this side of the House as well as the other. That debate also proved the vulnerability of political parties. Indeed, we learned in the course of the deliberations that as many hon. members on this side of the House as hon. members of the official opposition, received contributions from unions whose activities have brought up questions in several person's minds. I was surprised, Mr. Speaker, to learn that hon. members of the opposition had also accepted gifts, all in all quite modest, from a union, thus exposing themselves, to comparable blame, which the ministers willingly pointed out. Indeed, if the majority-


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I apologize to the hon. member. I think he made a lapsus linguae when he said hon. members of the official opposition and of the other parties. I want to point out to him that it has been publicly confirmed that the Social Credit Party was not involved with the unions concerned.


Serge Joyal: I thank the hon. member for Lotbiniere; the point he raised is indeed correct.
I was pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that if a majority of Canadian voters had favoured members of the party of the official opposition we would probably have had the same debate, and vice versa, as in the final analysis our system showed in the past that the door was open to actions by groups that could readily be questioned.
And that is precisely why the 29th Parliament passed a bill thenceforth allowing all members of recognized parties to receive contributions, but also disclose the origin of such contributions.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think that today's debate is the logical follow-up to those situations we pointed out, that the prime responsibility for detecting conflicts of interest rests with the political party itself.
Indeed, when political parties have to chose candidates, quite often they must take into account a number of factors, including of course the honesty of individuals, their competence, and also their role in the professional world.
As a matter of fact, most parties that want to undergo a change are increasingly looking for candidates with extensive experience, and that experience includes the realm of business, of professions, of education as well as all sectors related to government activities.
It would be quite easy, Mr. Speaker, when considering the situation of every member, to find that at a given moment one or the other could be in conflict of interest. It is not because of person is not a shareholder of a company or a property owner that he or she is necessarily unaffected by all kinds of conflicts of interest.
When a bill is introduced in the House, an active union member or a businessman fights for the opinions, the interests of the people among whom he has gained his own experience.
And in this context, I think it is a little simplistic to limit the debate or conflict of interest solely to the financial aspect. This responsibility of political parties should be thoroughly investigated to develop a code of ethics. And I believe it is really on this area that we should concentrate.
A code of ethics, Mr. Speaker, does not have a solely repressive effect, it does not aim simply at imposing sanctions for offenses, but it also has a normative effect. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), when underlining the importance of an investigation on organized crime in a previous speech, showed that the aim of such an investigation was not necessarily repressive but normative, that it aimed at warning people about a possible danger and at contributing to the development of a valid policy taking these dangers into account. I believe
December 10, 1974

that a code of ethics should be adopted, and my colleagues in the House of Commons should be interested in promoting such a code.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am not one of those who believe that only ministers and senior public servants can be involved in conflicts of interest. Having had a role in a minister's office which, as the hon. member mentioned, dealt daily with cases of future expropriation, I know that ministerial staff can be as involved in conflicts of interest as the minister himself, since during the course of their work, they have access to information that they could use to their own advantage or in such a way as to help other people they know to make profits.
I also do not believe that not being a cabinet member is reason enough to be excluded from this legislation. Many of us have had previous professional responsibilities in the business world, and the companies for which we used to work may-one day or even now-have negotiations with the government and make representations to obtain contracts and responsibilities. And the fact that we no longer belong to these companies does not exclude us from conflicts of interest.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if we really want to have a serious and non-partisan approach to this matter, we must consider it in its whole, we must consider the responsibility of political parties when they look for candidates, people who necessarily have had professional experience and interests in wide ranging economic activities. And the aim of most political parties when they want to be renewed is to call upon people who have proved themselves in the business or academic world or as professionals.
But to look for angels and to believe that candidates can be found who are immune from any conflict of interest is, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, to oversimplify politics, which does not necessarily imply that political parties or individual members of the House have no responsibilities. But they can only assume those responsibilities if a code of ethics is actually adopted and if that code of ethics aims at both objectives I mentioned earlier, that is, first a normative objective that would consist in creating within groups, among people with public responsibilities, a certain set of values of honesty and of the services to be rendered primarily to the public. But I do not think we are doing Canadians a service if we try to keep this debate within the narrow limits of contributions that may have been received during an election campaign. We dealt with that problem especially during the 29th parliament when legislation was passed, but in the present situation, what we must establish within the public service, within the Parliament, is actually a set of values that would bring everyone to model his conduct after a service to the public which is not what we have witnessed in the past days.
I should like to report, Mr. Speaker, that in some countries-and I am thinking of Britain and the United States in particular-the intelligence of citizens was not insulted because not every minister and state secretary in the past had to disclose his interests. In my opinion, if we must seek a solution agreeable to all hon. members, we will really find it by giving up partisanship and by strictly keeping in mind the need to improve the relations which
Division
hon. members of Parliament ministerial staff officials and ministers themselves will have with their constituents.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. It being 9.45 o'clock p.m., pursuant to special order made Monday, December 9, 1974, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings to put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the motion. The question, therefore, is on the amendment to the motion in the name of Mr. Stanfield. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question now is on the main motion. Is there a disposition to deal with the main motion by a voice vote. Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Sharp) agreed to on division.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
[Stage Direction]
(B)
Mitchell William Sharp: That supplementary estimates (B) 1974-75, laid upon the Table, Friday, November 22, 1974, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
|The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner).)


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Sharp (for Mr. Chretien) thereupon moved that Bill C-42, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1975, be read the first time and printed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Sharp (for Mr. Chretien) thereupon moved that Bill C-42, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1975, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 3 carry?


André-Gilles Fortin: On division.
Clause 3 agreed to on division.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 4 carry?


André-Gilles Fortin: On division.
Clause 4 agreed to on division.
On clause 5-Power to raise loan of $2,500,000,000 for public works and general purposes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Could I ask the Minister of Finance to tell us the exact purpose of clause 5 which is in addition to the usual form of an appropriation bill? We are now being asked to approve the granting of additional authority to the Governor in Council to borrow sums of roughly $2.5 billion, as I read it. There may be a valid explanation, but I think it should be on record.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: The hon. member is very observant, as usual. The reason we need extra borrowing authority is because of the extra liquidity given to us as a result of the very successful Canada Savings Bond campaign.


Gérald Laniel: I wish to bring it to the attention of the committee that I thought the hon. member for Edmonton West was rising on a point of order. By virtue of an order of the House which has been accepted we are to dispose of this bill without debate. Thus, I consider the question raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West to be a point of order, and I will recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) in the same way.

The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I did not hear clause 5 was carried and I had a question for the Minister of Finance concerning the proposed interest rates on the $2.5 billion bond issue.


Gérald Laniel: Order. The chair is in a somewhat awkward position. The House instructed the committee to
December 10, 1974

deal with the bill without debate, and if at this point I recognized the hon. member for Edmonton West, I thought he rose on a point of order. I may be inclined, to be fair to the hon. member for Lotbiniere, to give him the same opportunity, but I would not like him to press his question any further if the minister will answer.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on the same point of order. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I put the question at this point to show that we are now giving the Minister of Finance authority to borrow $2.5 billion. A completely ridiculous procedure. I believe this system of carrying the motion will be abolished when we debate amendments to the procedure.


Gérald Laniel: Order. I must emphasize, for the benefit of the hon. member, that we have to act with such speed not only because of House or committee procedure, but also because there was an order by this House, approved by all members and the hon. member in particular, that tonight, at this time, we vote all necessary estimates, all amendments and the main motion.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Gérald Laniel: Does the hon. member rise on a point of order?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have to apologize, Mr. Chairman, for not being very familiar with procedure, because I am specializing mainly in production, and not in estimates. I would therefore ask for what I believe is a warranted explanation.
On Clause 5: $2.5 billion which may be required for Public Works-I agree with this-and other general purposes.
Mr. Chairman, I would like the hon. Minister of Finance to clarify what is meant by other general purposes. Mr. Chairman, I have risen on a point of order, which is a serious matter, and I would like to keep the floor. If we have 50 chairmen in the House, it will simply not work.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I ask the hon. member to resume his seat. I simply wish to refer him to the decision arrived at by the House last Friday which compels the
Business of the House
Committee, at this stage, to pass the bill clause by clause, without debate. Then, the hon. member has the privilege to vote against Clause 5 if he is dissatisfied with the gist of it. He can only show his dissatisfaction by his vote. Therefore, I must at this time avoid other debates and, unless hon. members rise on points of order or procedure, I must call Clause 5.

Clause 5 agreed to: Yeas, 180; nays, 5.
Clause 6 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mitchell William Sharp: that the bill be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


An hon. Member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.
Mitchell William Sharp: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I think the government House leader was in some doubt a couple of days ago about the business for tomorrow. Perhaps he might be able to enlighten the House tonight as to what we will be doing tomorrow.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to call two bills standing in the name of the Minister of Finance, Bill C-40 and Bill C-39, in that order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being after ten o'clock, pursuant to standing order the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
At 10.31 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.