1975-11-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43 of urgent and pressing necessity. Because Christmas is but a month away and this is the time of year when the children of Canada traditionally write their letters to Santa Claus, and because this is the first Christmas season in the history of Canada that the Post Office is on strike, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan):
That this House advise the children of Canada to write their letters to Santa Claus anyway and give them to their parents for transmission to their local member of parliament, who will give these letters to the Postmaster General for personal delivery to Santa Claus.


Mr. Speaker:: It is certainly very difficult to set this aside as being unimportant or failing to have urgency in view of the approaching deadline. The standing ^order requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
In view of the enormous deficit the Montreal Olympic Games are expected to incur, the fact that the Federal State of Germany assumed 48.6 per cent of the cost of the Munich Games, while the Federal State of Austria assumed 50 per cent of the Innsbruck Games, the fact that the Montreal Games may be in jeopardy, and bearing in mind that to date the federal government participation has entailed no real financial participation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That a quadripartite meeting be held by the federal government, the Quebec government, the City of Montreal and COJO with a view to finding an adequate solution to the problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, the motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of recent indications that the Northern Canada Power Commission intends in the near future to raise its rates for electricity to residents of Yellowknife, and in light of the already unbearably high cost of living in the Northwest Territories, which is the highest in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House instruct the government to disallow, for the duration of the government's anti-inflation program, any increases in electricity rates by the NCPC to consumers north of the 60th parallel.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter arising from an Order Paper question No. 3,359 which asked for details of government business dealings and the expenditure of public funds since April 20, 1968 with William Teron Associates, William Teron Ltd., William Teron personally

November 20, 1975
Agriculture
and any company with which he had a connection, and I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That the Prime Minister make a statement to the House giving all reasons why the business dealings with the government, along with the amount of public funds involved, on the part of William Teron and companies in which he had an interest have been withheld from parliament; specifically, whether or not there are justifiable reasons for the government to withhold such information from parliament and, finally, whether or not the government is failing to divulge such information if it exists for purposes of self-protection or self-preservation.


Mr. Speaker:: It is apparent that there is no urgency involved in that motion, nor is there any attempt by the hon. member to put an element of urgency in it.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the preventing of anyone from expressing his views is a rather dangerous condition in any democracy, and in view of the flagrant disregard for free speech in Toronto last night when Mr. Al-Hout was prevented from giving his point of view, I propose the following motion under Standing Order 43:
This House affirms its belief in freedom of speech as an essential ingredient of a democracy or free country, and that such freedom extends even to those with whom some might disagree.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As praiseworthy as that motion may be, if the Chair is to maintain any consistency from the point of preventing a general consideration of subjects in that motions must have an element of urgency involved, I would unfortunately have to reject that as a proper matter for a motion under Standing Order 43.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the serious overproduction of industrial milk in Canada now, which is liable to jeopardize producers who already face enormous problems, and considering that the quantity of imported cheese amounts to 50 million pounds a year in apparent contradiction with agreements made with producers in the general context of a general contingency plan, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the House study this problem to bring immediate corrections to it and notably to have the responsibility for cheese imports-exports

transferred from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to the Department of Agriculture, as should have been done long since to avoid the problems we experience.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General who said yesterday in the House.
-I thought it was time to suspend negotiations until they came to their senses and understood there is only so much money. I am prepared to go back to the negotiating table and re-arrange some of those monetary issues.
I ask the minister whether the union has indicated that it is prepared to resume negotiations within the framework of the guidelines contained in the government's wage control program, and whether the Postmaster General can indicate that serious negotiations are to resume today or within a defined period of time?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been directly contacted by the union representatives to indicate to me they are prepared to resume negotiations. What I said was I was prepared to sit down with the union. I simply made it very clear that I wanted to be sure if we resume negotiations they could lead to a collective agreement. I also made it clear that we would have to remain within the monetary package but that there was some flexibility within that package in altering rates here and there that we were prepared to consider, and I presume we have now moved into a period of reflection on the part of certain parties. I cannot say with any certainty or honesty that negotiations will resume today, tomorrow or Saturday.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, has the Postmaster General any reason to believe that the union is now prepared to resume negotiations either today, tomorrow or Saturday within the government's wage control guidelines?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I would presume that anybody in the union would now understand that if they expect to go beyond the monetary package that was offered there just is no way. On that presumption maybe they will be ready to start negotiations Sunday, Monday or
November 20, 1975

Tuesday. There has been no direct communication from the union as to whether the negotiations will resume.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in other words the Postmaster General has not taken any initiative himself to ascertain whether or not the executive of the union would enter negotiations within the framework of the government's present wage control guidelines.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Well, Mr. Speaker, rarely do I and the hon. gentleman disagree. I think with his experience he would understand that every time I answer these questions it could unintentionally jeopardize the possibilities. I am not about to say exactly what is transpiring at the moment.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON BACK TO WORK LEGISLATION
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister said:
At some point in every strike which adversely affects the public interest, parliament as a whole may be called upon to endorse the government's position, if the government wants to put the question before parliament, and perhaps legislation to bring the workers back to work.
My question to the Acting Prime Minister is: Could he indicate to the House what conclusion the cabinet reached in its considerations this morning?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we did not arrive at a conclusion to place legislation before parliament ordering the men to go back to work.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government's first objective is to let this strike last as long as it takes to break the executive of the union and, if so, would the Acting Prime Minister tell the House why the government believes the "high noon" mentality of the Postmaster General and a long, bitter strike will produce moderate union leadership and intelligent industrial relations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think I speak for most Canadians when I say I believe the Postmaster General is doing an excellent job in dealing with this strike. It is not our objective to break any union leaders. This government has a high regard for the trade union movement. We want the negotiations to continue and be completed within the framework of the guidelines.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want to jeopardize the fine work the minister thinks he is doing in the postal discussions, so I will ask my question of the Minister of Finance concerning
Oral Questions
Bill C-73. Mr. J. L. Biddell, newest member of the AntiInflation Board said two days ago in Toronto that business "can expect to live with them", that is the regulations, "for only a short time", and furthermore, he, Mr. Biddell, member of the Board, foresaw "an early need for adjustment". I should like to ask the minister, in light of the statement by Mr. Biddell whether he was speaking for the government when he said this? Does this mean that either the regulations, which we do not have yet and which we might get early in December, are going to be changed soon or that the termination date of the act as it will be announced shortly will be changed by the government?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is evident that we have succeeded in appointing to the commission a number of independent-minded Canadians who will do their very best to make certain that this program works.


John Edward Broadbent: Or doesn't.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would say that on the question of adjustments, as the hon. member knows, there have already been amendments proposed by the government as a result of representations received from members in the House and other interests in the community. We would anticipate that when the bill receives royal assent and the regulations are promulgated, they too will have to be amended from time to time. We recognize above all that the bill has to apply itself to a very complex economy and that it will have to be adjusted from time to time to make certain that justice is done under the guidelines.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-METHOD OF SECURING COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS WHICH MAY BE CHANGED IN THE FUTURE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if the government has not yet announced its regulations, and the minister is saying that those unannounced regulations are going to be changed in the future, how can the government expect, either from the corporate sector or from the trade union movement, to get compliance, get their agreement to co-operate and implement such regulations in advance of the very publication of the regulations with which they are asked to agree?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am
sure that if we proceeded otherwise, by setting them out and saying that that is it, there would be no changes, the hon. member would be the first one to say that we should have consulted the provinces, the unions and industry. You cannot have it both ways.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-SUGGESTION NEGOTIATED WAGE SETTLEMENTS BE ALLOWED TO EXCEED GUIDELINES PENDING DECISION BY BOARD
John Edward Broadbent: I have a final question, Mr. Speaker, and it is a little complicated. I would ask with respect that the minister hear it out

November 20, 1975
Oral Questions
because it is put to elicit information and not to make a point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that at present companies negotiating with unions on strike, in circumstances in which both agree that although their situation comes within the provisions of Bill C-73 they are not restricted by the 10 per cent increase provision, are offering to pay workers only the 10 per cent now and insist that before any additional amount is paid a ruling must be made by the Anti-Inflation Board; since this puts the whole burden of an early settlement on the workers who are now on strike, can the minister assure the House that when the regulations are brought down early in December, if not before, that situation will be changed so that companies will be permitted, and indeed instructed, to pay to the workers in advance of a strike settlement amounts to which both sides agree they would be entitled, and then if a board decision is made to the contrary, the money could be reclaimed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you repeat the question?


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect I should point out that the bill is before the committee and therefore that kind of question here is surely out of order.


John Edward Broadbent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sit down, Ed.


An hon. Member:: There is a 40 minute time limit on your question, Ed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Richmond.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
We are now in a position where we can more accurately assess the enormous cost of the Olympic Games and their deficit. Furthermore, we know the tremendous odds against which we are fighting to complete the program on time, make it a success and avoid waste.
Can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether or not the government is reconsidering its former position on this matter, in view of the fact that Canada's reputation is at stake and we do not want the Olympics to become for Montreal what New York City has turned out to be for the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has been of substantial assistance

with regard to the Olympic games, first by providing certain federal services which are essential for security and for other aspects of the games. Through legislation we have also made it possible for very large sums of money to be raised by the sale of coins and stamps. If the hon. gentleman thinks we should go beyond that, we have not made a decision along those lines. Indeed, we stand by the position stated by the Prime Minister on many occasions that we will not be responsible for any part of the deficit of the games.


Léonel Beaudoin: I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Considering the Acting Prime Minister's answer, I wonder if he could tell the House whether or not the cabinet intends to deal with this most important question of a huge deficit and try to find positive solutions to help the province of Quebec concerning this situation which is most alarming for the people of that province, especially the city of Montreal?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I said, we have acted in many positive fashions. If the hon. gentleman is asking whether we have made any decision to change the policy, the answer is no, but within the policy we have been of very substantial assistance to Montreal and to the success of the games.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Notwithstanding assurances given in the House on October 17 by the Prime Minister, the House was informed through the Finance Committee yesterday and today that the legislation now before the committee will, in fact, not permit the enforcement of the guidelines on marketing boards, either federal or provincial.
Has the cabinet made a policy decision with respect to enforcing the guidelines on marketing boards, and if so, has or will a directive be issued to the Farm Products Marketing Council directing that council to enforce the guidelines on marketing boards, specifically the Turkey Marketing Board and the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, which are under its jurisdiction.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the vice-chairman of the board speaking on radio this morning. She said there were some difficulties about this. We have always understood that there would be some difficulties and uncertainties as to how far the jurisdiction of the Anti-Inflation Board might extend. It certainly does not extend beyond the farm gate, but there are some difficulties even if that principle is accepted. I suggest to the hon. member that if he has any particular proposals to make by way of amendment and so on, these can be made in the committee and subsequently dealt with in the House.
November 20, 1975


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-SUGGESTION CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY JUSTIFY PRICE INCREASE IN VIEW OF REDUCED FEED COSTS
James Aloysius McGrath: I was hoping to receive some direction as to the policy of the government with respect to the marketing boards which are not covered by the legislation. Accordingly, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who now has an opportunity, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, to assert great leadership on behalf of Canadian consumers. Has the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs been in touch with the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency with respect to a directive from the Anti-Inflation Board to justify the recent increase in the price of eggs, in light of the fact that feed grain prices have gone down?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my relationship with the Minister of Agriculture is excellent and I would not like to intervene in an area that belongs to him. On the other hand, I am sure that he has already been clearly advised to protect the consumer's interest and to make sure that his marketing boards work in the interest of both producers and the general public.


INFORMATION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. I had hoped to put it to the Prime Minister whose approval of the British parliamentary practice is well known, especially since the trouble with the French connection! I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he has been made aware of the fact that the British government, in the Speech from the Throne yesterday, indicated that it intends to very substantially moderate the Official Secrets Act and provide an easier method of access to information? Also, is the Canadian government contemplating a similar approach so as not to be the only parliamentary democracy remaining in the medieval ages by not having access to information?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peace River and I both visited Westminster recently. One of the features of their procedures that did not appeal to us was the question period. During question period here hon. members have an opportunity for an hour to ask questions of the ministry without notice.


An hon. Member:: With no answers.


Mitchell William Sharp: The members at Westminster envy us for that, so I say to my hon. friend that we share the same views in that respect. We have looked very carefully at the bill he has put down in this respect. In principle, I think we are on the same side. The government is anxious to
Oral Questions
provide all the information that can be provided without affecting the security of the state or international dealings or the reputations of individuals. The real difficulty is that no one is quite sure into whose hands the implementation should be placed.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH CONTROL PROGRAM INTRODUCED
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I resist the urge to respond to some of the things the minister has said. As a test of his good faith, and the government's good faith, will the Acting Prime Minister consider tabling in this House all the documents of a statistical and factual nature which persuaded the Prime Minister and the government in the early days of October to make an 180 degree turn in direction with regard to the imposition of controls?


POST OFFICE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Postmaster General is based on a reply given yesterday in the House by the right hon. Prime Minister. Is it the government's position that by ordering a government supervised vote of the striking postal workers to see if they wish to accept the government's terms and return to work, that the government would in effect be denying these workers the right to strike?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, in a press release yesterday the Canadian Labour Congress expressed the opinion of organized labour that in the postal dispute we should not legislate the men back to work, since they are our employees and, second, that we do not interfere in the operation of the union by asking for a secret ballot. This is not my wish; it is the desire of the Canadian Labour Congress as announced in their press release yesterday. They further suggested that we keep on negotiating. I am fully in accord with the views of the Canadian Labour Congress.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Did a delegation of the Toronto Metropolitan School Board meet this morning with officials of the AntiInflation Board to seek a ruling to assist in resolving the strike which is depriving several hundreds of thousands of young people of educational services in Toronto? If so, can the minister report on this meeting?

November 20, 1975
Oral Questions


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I take good note of the question and I will answer the hon. member tomorrow.


HOUSING
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: May I put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs? In view of the fact that the minister requested the provinces to institute residential rent controls, and in view of the obvious attractiveness of industrial and commercial office space as an investment for developers as evidenced by the continued boom in that form of construction, has the minister or his officials discussed with the provinces the advisability of instituting rent controls on commercial and industrial uses so that investment funds will not flow out of residential construction into uncontrolled uses?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, because of the direction the lenders will be taking there will also be a boom in housing construction. It has already started. This question was raised when I met with the provincial housing ministers at our last meeting. It was not one on which we gave direction, however. Our concern was in housing itself and rental accommodation for families. This is within provincial jurisdiction and the provinces will be handling that end of things. The question of commercial space was raised, but no agreement was reached. It really does not come within my jurisdiction.


SUGGESTION PENSION FUNDS BE GIVEN LENDER STATUS UNDER NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
John Gilbert: A supplementary question. In view of the reluctance of the minister to bring forth legislation to compel lending institutions to set aside a portion of funds for residential housing, and in view of the fact that pension funds want to participate in lending, would the minister consider offering pension funds approved lender status under the National Housing Act?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the pension funds are interested in the mortgage investment field, we would like to encourage them. They are much more encouraged now by the establishment of the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation which will be in operation on April 1. They also have the opportunity through the Mortgage Investment Corporation which I have been encouraging. If they would lend their money at 5 per cent we could have 7 per cent mortgages.


SUGGESTION UNITED STATES WILL NOT RATIFY PIPELINE TREATY UNTIL NORTHERN GAS PIPELINE ASSURED
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if the United States government had indicated to the Canadian government that they will not ratify the pipeline treaty until they are sure that a joint Canada-United States natural gas pipeline through northern Canada is assured, and that only then will the federal government be able to negotiate with the provinces the basis of a transit tax on gas?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is, not to my knowledge.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of State for Fisheries. In view of the fact that the minister is showing an obvious trend to enter into bilateral agreements with an increased number of nations, rightfully to protect Canada's fish resources until multinational agreements are reached, would the minister rationalize the need for bilateral agreements which can extend for many months beyond the Law of the Sea Conference, with the more simple, clearcut unilateral declaration of the 200 mile limit fisheries zone until the next Law of the Sea Conference?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member looks at the case of Iceland, which declared unilaterally and it is now trying, in a climate of bitterness, to negotiate some bilateral agreements, I think he would find confirmation of the wisdom of the course we have taken. In the legislation now before the United States Congress, there is provision for bilateral negotiations with those countries which traditionally fished off the United States shores. What we are doing is negotiating in order to be ready to extend jurisdiction by whatever method it is adopted.


INQUIRY WHETHER AGREEMENT WITH NORWAY LIMITED TO FISHERIES
Roméo LeBlanc: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, if you would permit me, I would say to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich in answer to his question of yesterday, that the agreement with Norway is for fisheries only.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT CLARIFYING CANADA'S POSITION BEFORE NEXT LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE
Jack Marshall: supplementary question. In view of the fact that since the Law of the Sea Conference the minister and the Secretary
November 20, 1975

of State for External Affairs have been expressing optimism over the result in direct conflict with the opinion of some impartial experts who attended the conference who said with regard to committee No. 2 that the results were disastrous and that as a result of the Law of the Sea Conference the situation is more complicated now, would the minister make a statement on motions as soon as possible to clarify Canada's position before the next conference?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, we might quibble on the assessment of the results of the conference; certainly, in the area of fisheries the unified text which has come forward is one which protects most of our interests. I would not have the pretention to make a statement on motions; I would leave that in the able hands of my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


EXTENT OF JURISDICTION GRANTED BY AGREEMENT WITH NORWAY
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: I wish to put a question to the Minister of State (Fisheries).
First I would like to thank him for his answer to my question yesterday. My question today is the following: Is that agreement with Norway supposed to guarantee Canadian jurisdiction over our fisheries in continental waters up to 200 miles or up to the limits of the continental shelf?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I will disappoint the hon. member. I will have to check, I do not have the text of the agreement before me.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the recently signed European security treaty whereby the Soviet Union agreed to honour principles of human liberty, as they apply to Soviet nationals, and in view of the Soviet Union's refusal to allow Andraei Sakharov permission to travel to Norway to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, will the minister register Canada's disapproval of the U.S.S.R.'s action in a statement to this House?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the signatories to the Helsinki declaration, or whatever you may wish to call the final act, undertook to facilitate the freer movement of peoples and ideas. There is also, in the same declaration, a provision for the exercise of the sovereign rights of individual persons and states. In this case, obviously, it is our view that there ought to be wider and
Oral Questions
greater exchanges of people, and greater freedom of movement; and it will be possible, when the review conference is held in Belgrade, in 1977, to ask all participants to account for their adherence to the Helsinki act or declaration.
sfc *	*


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Communications, I want to put my question to the Minister of Transport in charge of Communications.
In view of the appointment of a new minister responsible for communications at the time of the last cabinet reshuffle of the Bourassa government and in view of the religious silence kept by the federal government since the resignation of Mr. Juneau who was looking after cablevi-sion, can the minister responsible say to the House whether he met with his Quebec counterpart? If not, does he intend to do so?
In any case, can he tell the House where the negotiations between the two governments stand on this subject?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, meetings have not been held at this point.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It is alleged that inside workers of the post office are losing about $800,000 a day, carriers, $700,000 a day, and, indeed, all Canadians are losing financially from the post office strike. Has the government taken this into consideration? Has it any idea how large this financial loss is? If not, will the minister undertake to speak on motions tomorrow, to give some idea what the strike is costing those directly affected and the rest of the people of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we need to argue the figures. The costs are serious.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-CRITERIA USED IN DECIDING WHEN TO END STRIKE
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to hear the Acting Prime Minister's answer, as the Prime Minister has indicated several times that, when and if legislation is to be introduced to end the strike is a matter for judgment. Considering the Acting Prime Minister's answer, will he

November 20, 1975
Oral Questions
tell the House the criteria the government is using, to determine whether and if it should act in order to halt this strike. I think the Canadian people should be aware of the answer to that question.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said, this is a question of judgment. The judgment must be guided by many considerations, by regard for the principle of collective bargaining and not wanting to interfere with it, the principle of support for the guidelines, which I think is in the interest of all Canadians, including the members of trade unions and the postmen themselves. Serious costs would be incurred if this government were to weaken in its defence of the guidelines. I think some costs would also need to be taken into account if we were to override the ordinary principles of collective bargaining and order the men back by parliamentary action.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister missed the purport of my question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the minister's statement on Angola on November 13, to the effect that the political and security situations there are extremely confused-those are his words-and that we are not at present in a position to recognize or enter into relations with any group which may claim to govern the country, will the minister undertake to withdraw financial aid to Cuba, as provided through CIDA, until such time as the government in Cuba withdraws its 2,500 Communist troops from Angola.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the answer is no.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Why not?


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is about inflation. The government has indicated that controlling inflation is of high priority. The Northern Canada Power Commission having given notice that it will soon raise the wholesale price of electricity 113 per cent, even though living costs in my constituency are higher than in any other part of the country, will the minister take action to ensure that this

increase is investigated and approved by the Anti-Inflation Board, before it comes into effect?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the hon. member's figures are correct. I saw the figure of 40 per cent and expressed horror. I asked that any change in price be cleared with me. I am still waiting for information on this.


POST OFFICE
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. Considering the answer the President of the Privy Council gave the hon. member for Hamilton West regarding the length of the postal strike, will the minister advise if he has consulted with his colleagues and is prepared to recommend the setting up of a special fund, in conjunction with the CLC, to compensate the thousands of small businessmen who have lost millions of dollars which they will never recover. How long must they wait?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Come on, answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour and relates to the post office strike. I am wondering if, in an effort to assist his friend the Postmaster General to end the post office shutdown, the minister will now give serious consideration to introducing legislation which would bar strikes in all essential services?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked about assistance for the Postmaster General. He ought to be advised that he has the entire backing of the government and the Liberal party in his effort to resolve this particular dispute.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But he is doing it on the backs of Canadians.


John Carr Munro: We think he is doing the best possible job to that end.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, and somebody else has to pay.
November 20, 1975


John Carr Munro: It is certainly not clear to me, or the government, that premature action to end the strike-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Premature action!


John Carr Munro: -will, in the long term, benefit Canadian businessmen in the way the hon. member alleges.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My God! You are out of your skull!


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions NATIONAL REVENUE

Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Is he aware of regulations issued by his department to regional offices relating to budget restrictions, and, if so, would he explain how these regulations, which restrict field audit officers to a radius of ten miles of regional centres are likely to affect the functioning of the offices throughout the country?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: I am
always pleased to hear that my officials are aware of the need to show restraint at this time. As to the special circumstances referred to by the hon. member, I will have to look into that aspect.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State, and concerns the terrible television and radio coverage in northern New Brunswick. Can he tell the House the status of the proposal for 100 per cent CBC television and broadcasting coverage for northern New Brunswick? Specifically, how does the proposal relate to the holdback of the application of the residents of Dalhousie regarding cablevision?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to give the hon. member that information.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan Kootenay):: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I ask it because I will be leaving shortly for the Okanagan Valley and I should like to be the bearer of good news. Is the hon. lady in a position to say whether an agreement has been signed with the provincial government to permit the implementation of an extremely urgent program to enable the Okanagan Water Board to launch an attack on long range problems concerning the lakes of that valley?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, that agreement has not yet been signed. We are now in the final phase of the preparations, and I am confident we can sign that agreement in the near future.


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the minister aware of an article in last Saturday's London Free Press which reported a professor from the faculty of law at the University of Western Ontario as saying that banks which issue Chargex cards are charging interest on the unpaid balance of accounts run up during the postal strike where no statement has been sent out, despite the fact that the cardholder agreement specifically states that interest becomes payable only 25 days after the statement has been sent to the cardholder? If so, has the minister looked into this matter and can he tell the House whether the interest is being charged and collected illegally?


André Ouellet: Yes, I am aware of this. Officials of my department are already looking into this and if it is necessary prosecutions will be undertaken.


FISHERIES
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries? In 1972 the interim report of the committee on seals and sealing recommended the phase-out of the Canadian and Norwegian Atlantic seal hunt by 1974 to be followed by a minimum six-year moratorium on hunting. This recommendation was never implemented. Would the minister now take a good look at these recommendations and make every effort to bring this brutal and unnecessary slaughter to an end?


Roméo LeBlanc: have before me now the report of the advisory committee on seals headed by Professor Keith Ronald, a man of great scientific reputation. An assessment of the stocks shows that the stocks are somewhat lower than desirable. We are

November 20, 1975
Oral Questions
checking and rechecking this information. A judgment will be made strictly in terms of conservation and for no other reason.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice arising from the court action taken by the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal contesting the constitutionality of Bill 22. Is it the intention of the government to intervene in this action and would any such intervention be in accord with past statements of the Prime Minister on this subject?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: The Attorney General of Canada has been named as mis-en-cause or third party in the proceedings undertaken in the Superior Court of Quebec. It is my intention to file an appearance in those actions, as is the standard procedure in such matters, but to take no further action at this time.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs? In view of the fact that the President of the Privy Council has assured me on four or five Thursdays in a row that a certain matter is under consideration, can the minister tell us whether a favourable decision has been reached with respect to it? I refer to the bill to implement the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs concerning Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war and concerning the provision of pensions to veterans' widows?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I can confirm the statement made by the House leader but that is as far as I can go today.


INDUSTRY
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In December 1973, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce set up a sector strategy for the footwear and tanning industries experiencing some difficulties in Canada. Canadian production was then increasing, but it is now much lower and shoes from countries where production costs are very low continue to flood the Canadian market. Can the minister tell the House whether he has studied the paper prepared by the Canadian Committee on Trade and Customs Tariffs or can he report on those conditions which could take considerable and disastrous proportions?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I have been made aware of these submissions and have had some opportunity to look at them. I would remind the hon. member that the strategy with regard to the shoe industry and related industries is still only a matter of 18 months old and it is our judgment that no special or additional action is needed at the present time-the measures should be given a chance to prove themselves. In the meantime, we shall continue to examine the health of the industry on a regular basis and determine whether any additional steps may be needed in the future.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Peter P. Masniuk (Portage):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On November 12, the United States presented a resolution in the United Nations Assembly appealing to all governments to proclaim an unconditional amnesty by releasing all political prisoners who have sought equal expression of beliefs and opinions at variance with those held by their governments and requesting all governments to co-operate with the Commission on Human Rights. Is it the intention of the Canadian government to participate in the debate in the General Assembly and to support this resolution?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Canadian delegation has been holding meetings with other like-minded delegations on this American-sponsored resolution and, as I recollect the situation, Canada will be supporting the resolution. I presume we are speaking about the same resolution.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have refrained from asking any questions concerning the postal strike but in common with Canadians as a whole my patience is exhausted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: My question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. The Postmaster General having stated that he can live with this strike if it continues until Easter, does

November 20, 1975

this not mean there is little or no possibility of any settlement taking place, and, in these circumstances, is it not time for the government to get rid of its gutlessness and bring in legislation to provide for the end of the strike, a return to work, and the payment to workers of the amount the government is prepared to make available within the limits of the guidelines so that labour and the department can continue negotiations without Canada being held up to ransom the way it is at the present time?


John Carr Munro: I thought the right hon. member was one of those who would not use parliament to arbitrarily deny the rights of workers by legislation unless there was assurance there would not be any long term damaging effects in terms of the free collective bargaining system. If we are to come to parliament every time there is a dislocation resulting from a strike, this parliament would become nothing but a labour court. As far as Easter is concerned, the hon. gentleman may have noticed that the Postmaster General said within the last day or so that the parties may very well be coming back to the bargaining table. It seems to me that this is the best assurance of a final settlement of this dispute.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That unctuous declaration does not answer the question. At what time is Canada, and the people as a whole, going to be able to end this hold-up which is doing so much harm to all parts of our country and playing havoc particularly with small business?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would resist the right to respond to that question which has a large hypothetical element in it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader, in light of the fact that we know what the business will be for today and for tomorrow, what the business will be for next week?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, today is an opposition day. Tomorrow we will call Bill C-61. When that is disposed of, whether on Friday or on Monday, we will proceed to the consideration of Bill C-20.


Gerald William Baldwin: Monday is an opposition day.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sorry. May I amend what I said, Mr. Speaker; I had forgotten that Monday is also an opposition day. On Tuesday, on the hypothesis, which I think is justified, that Bill C-73 has been reported out of committee, we will call the report stage and third reading of Bill C-73.
Business of the House


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader two questions with respect to House business? My first one relates to the bill regarding Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war. What can the House do to get the government to act on this matter?
My second question relates to Bill C-208, having to do with Heritage Day. Is the government prepared to let that bill be decided on before Christmas?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the bill dealing with veterans' pensions and related matters is still before cabinet. No final decision has been taken. On the other question, I have had some previous discussions with the House leader of the NDP. The government has not made a final decision whether to allow that particular bill to proceed or to bring in separate legislation. We are not quite sure about the timing, as well as the substance.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the comments made by the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) in the House yesterday, to be found at page 9239 of Hansard. He said:
The only regret I have about the arrests in Regina is that one of the two who were arrested is a non-postal employee named O'Sullivan. There is one of that name missing from the House of Commons today.
I wish to raise two points. I would take this time to assure the minister and the House that that O'Sullivan was not this member or, to my knowledge, any member of the family. With regard to the minister's reference to my absence from the House, this was necessitated by my having to be in Hamilton, a city with which the minister is familiar because his gracious mother lives there. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we both attend the same church and are to be found there regularly, no doubt cancelling out each other's prayers.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I do not know anyone whose prayers I would respect more and would do me more good. I realized early in the day that it was not the same O'Sullivan, because I was told that the one arraigned was an intellectual and a lecturer at a university.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to refer to a motion under Standing Order 43 that I presented for the consideration of the House a few moments ago asking for a statement from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as to why the government would not make public details of business, including expenditures of public funds, given to William Teron or companies with which he has been associated. Your Honour ruled, quite rightly,that I had not indicated that it was a matter of urgent and pressing necessity as required under Standing Order 43. I readily agree that I did not use the specific words "urgent and pressing necessity".
However, I rise now not in any way to improperly question the ruling of the Chair but to respectfully seek clarification and guidance from the Chair as to how the hiding of the expenditure of public funds given by the government to Mr. Teron is not a matter of urgent and pressing necessity when I have, as a member of the House, exhausted every possibility through the order paper of

November 20, 1975
Business of the House
having this information made public but have been directly refused by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With due respect to the hon. member, if he has any sentiments to express which clarify the urgent and pressing necessity of any motion pursuant to Standing Order 43, the time to do so is on the presentation of the motion, not after the Chair has ruled on it. The Chair can only be guided by the remarks put forward by an hon. member at the time.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Today I directed a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) in his capacity as minister in the House who answers for the anti-inflation board. I understand that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) answers for the legislation, but once the bill becomes operative and the board is in business the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs answers for the board. The minister ducked my question by suggesting it would be more properly directed to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).
May I make the point that as the board becomes operative and more and more a matter of public concern, and hence a matter of concern to this House, we are entitled to ask questions about its day to day operations: these questions shall be directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. My question today concerned the revelation made by the board yesterday that it had requested justification by CEMA of its most recent increase in the price of eggs. My question, with respect, was quite properly asking the minister what action he had taken in that regard.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the misunderstanding is not due to the question asked. On the contrary, I am always happy to receive questions from the hon. member, but I noticed he rose to ask a supplementary and was looking for the Acting Minister of Agriculture in the absence of the minister.
I simply stated that he could direct his question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), the hon. member for Cardigan, who is Acting Minister of Agriculture.
Therefore, my reply to the hon. member had nothing to do with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) but rather with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) who is Acting Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order respecting an undertaking, as I understood it, made in the House by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). About one month ago the Minister of Labour indicated, in response to an inquiry of mine, that the report of the commission with respect to the west coast grain handling problems in the port of Vancouver, the Bayda commission, would be tabled in the House, he said at that time, within one week or ten days. Subsequent to that we have had what is apparently a leak of the report, or parts of it, to the press, specifically the Vancouver Sun.

Subsequently I was assured by the parliamentary secretary that we would be having the Bayda report tabled. This is a matter of utmost importance and urgency as far as the people of western Canada are concerned and I would suggest, again, that if a minister makes an undertaking of the sort the Minister of Labour did, he should carry it out. We would now like to hear whether that report is going to be tabled now, or so far in the future that we can forget about any recommendations the report may contain?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that I did lead him to believe this report would be tabled sooner than has been the case. The only thing holding up the release of the report has been the deliberation of my cabinet colleagues in respect of certain provisions. It is our intention, as the government, to table the report together with our response to many of its recommendations in which I am sure the hon. member is interested. The consideration of certain elements of that response has been delayed due to the preoccupation of the government on other matters of higher priority: that is the reason for the delay. But I can assure the hon. member that as soon as the cabinet has had a chance to consider the material before it, we will make the report public. I do not anticipate that this will be too far into the future.


Mr. Haidasz:: Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon I hoped to be recognized on a supplementary question. A similar question was asked by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk) and in his reply the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) was not clear as to which resolution the hon. member for Portage was referring. As I have a copy of the U.S.A. draft resolution on human rights and amnesty for political prisoners tabled at the United Nations General Assembly on November 12, 1975, may I table a copy of the resolution to be included in Hansard so that this matter can be clarified?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that there is simply "no" provision in the rules of the House for private members to table documents.


TABLING OF NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD REPORT &quot;CANADIAN OIL SUPPLY AND REQUIREMENTS&quot;
Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of the National Energy Board report entitled "Canadian Oil Supply and Requirements".


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition to this House in respect of gun
November 20, 1975

controls, signed by approximately 10,000 people. This petition urges the government to place restrictions on the sale of lethal firearms over the counter. It should be of interest to the House that the petition was collected and given to me by Mrs. Maggie Burtinshaw of Vancouver whose son was shot to death in a shooting incident in Vancouver some time ago which, in my submission, could have been prevented had there been tighter gun control laws in effect at the time.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,162, 3,186, 3,194, 3,195, 3,196, 3,197, 3,198, 3,200, 3,201, 3,202, 3,213, 3,273 and 3,287.


Mr. Reynolds: On what date will the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation commence business?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: As announced by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs on November 3, 1975, the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation will be operational by April 1, 1976.


Mr. Landers: 1.	Was Saint John chosen as the possible site for the proposed medium security prison in Martinon, New Brunswick and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Was the Northumberland-Miramichi area considered as the locale for such an institution and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Was the detrimental effect on a city like Saint John considered when the location for an institution of this type was being decided?
4.	Was a civic poll or study carried out to determine the attitude of the citizens of the area and, if not, for what reason?
5.	Have the plans been made public and, if not, for what reason?
6.	Has the Department of the Solicitor General given any consideration to the effect of escapes, riots, etc. on the population of the Saint John area which is possible due to the proximity of such an institution to an area with a population over 100,000?
7.	Was the unemployment rate in (a) Saint John (b) Northumberland-Miramichi taken into consideration in the decision to establish the prison at Martinon?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. Yes. To provide medium security facilities for inmates originating from the general area of Saint John, N.B., or wishing to re-establish themselves in this area upon release.
Order Paper Questions
2.	No. Since this area did not meet the Penitentiary Service criteria for the location of medium security institutions, in so far as this area was too isolated from a major urban centre.
3.	Yes. Based on experience with similar institutions in large urban centres, it was considered that it would have no serious detrimental effect on the City.
4.	No. However, the Penitentiary Service has applied to the City Council of Saint John, N.B., for authority to purchase land for the construction of such a penal institution. It was left to the City Council to determine the need for a public hearing since they are responsible for the management of the utilization of property within the boundaries of the municipality.
5.	No. The construction plans are not completed. However, the general concept plan was made available to the City Council.
6.	Yes. Such consideration is being given in the construction plans of these institutions. The construction plan will provide for appropriate perimeter security installations as well as the provision in appropriate competence and numbers of security staff to be employed not only on the perimeter security line but also inside the institution for the prevention of escapes and possible disturbances. In addition, it was considered that the few escapes that may occur in this type of institution would have an extremely limited impact on the community since inmates incarcerated in such institutions are not considered to be dangerous.
7.	Yes. The rate of unemployment in any area of this country is a constant matter of concern to all federal government departments. Accordingly, the government has taken measures to restrict unemployment to a minimum. However, in the location of penal institutions certain other factors of major importance must receive priority over unemployment if appropriate rehabilitation programs are to be conducted in an efficient and economic manner.


Mr. Howie: How much money was given to firms in Prince Edward Island as incentive grants by DREE from April 1, 1973 to September 30, 1975 and how much was given to firms that are not currently operating?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: $1,863,275 was paid to firms in Prince Edward Island as incentive grants under the Regional Development Incentives Act from April 1, 1973, to September 30, 1975. Of this amount, $8,280 was paid to firms that are no longer operating.


Mr. Howie: How much money was given to firms in New Brunswick as incentive grants by DREE from April 1, 1973 to September 30, 1975 and how much was given to firms that are not currently operating?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The answer for the
9278

November 20, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: $16,311,803 was paid to firms in New Brunswick as incentive grants under the Regional Development Incentives Act from April 1, 1973, to September 30, 1975. Of that sum, $3,809,487 was paid to firms that are no longer operating. (This figure does not include $1,193,354 paid to a firm which has been on strike for an extended period.)


Mr. Howie: How much money was given to firms in Quebec as incentive grants by DREE from April 1, t973 to September 30, 1975 and how much was given to firms that are not currently operating?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: $89,940,449 was paid to firms in Quebec as incentive grants from April 1, 1973 to September 30, 1975. Of this amount, $1,249,207 was paid to firms that are not currently operating. Action has been instituted for the recovery of these grants from the inoperative firms.


Mr. Howie: How much money was given to firms in Newfoundland as incentive grants by DREE from April 1, 1973 to September 30, 1975 and how much was given to firms that are not currently operating?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: $5,265,400 was paid to firms in Newfoundland as incentive grants under the Regional Development Incentives Act between April 1, 1973 and September 30, 1975. Of that sum, $95,232 was paid to firms that are no longer operating.


Mr. Howie: How much money was given to firms in Nova Scotia as incentive grants by DREE from April 1, 1973 to September 30, 1975 and how much was given to firms that are not currently operating?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: $20,015,264 was paid to firms in Nova Scotia as incentive grants under the Regional Development Incentives Act from April 1, 1973, to September 30, 1975. Of this amount, $51,636 was paid to firms that are no longer operating.


Mr. Howie: How many firms in New Brunswick were given incentive grants by DREE from April 1, 1973 to September 30, 1975 and how many are not currently operating? '


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 134 firms in New Brunswick were given incentive grants

under the Regional Development Incentives Act from April 1, 1973, to September 30, 1975. Of the firms which have achieved commercial production, six firms are no longer operating.


Mr. Howie: How many firms in Nova Scotia were given incentive grants by DREE from April 1, 1973 to September 30, 1975 and how many are not currently operating?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: ninety seven firms in Nova Scotia were paid incentive grants under the Regional Development Incentives Act between April 1, 1973 and September 30, 1975. Of the firms which have achieved commercial production, two are no longer operating.


Mr. Howie: How many firms in Newfoundland were given incentive grants by DREE from April 1, 1973 to September 30, 1975 and how many are not currently operating?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: forty-six firms in Newfoundland were paid incentive grants under the Regional Development Incentives Act between April 1, 1973 and September 30, 1975. Of the firms which have achieved commercial production, one firm is no longer operating.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the government recently sign an agreement with the Province of Quebec on immigration and, if so (a) on what date (b) for what purpose (c) what are its principal terms?
2.	Does the agreement permit representatives of the Government of Quebec, in Canada or abroad, to pass opinions or review applications of immigrants wishing to live in Quebec and, if so, what other provinces have similar privileges and signed agreements?
3.	Will representatives of the Government of Quebec be allowed to set up staff in Canadian diplomatic posts abroad for purposes of dealing with immigration and, if so, in what locations?
4.	Has the same privilege been offered to other provinces?
5.	Is the agreement intended to (a) promote French speaking immigrants to Quebec (b) discourage or prevent English speaking immigrants to Quebec?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Yes. The Government signed a new Agreement with the Province of Quebec to replace the Lang/Cloutier Agreement signed in May, 1971. (a) The Agreement was officially signed October 17, 1975. (b) The Agreement outlines improved co-operative measures which the Federal and Provincial Government will use to encourage the movement of immigrants to Quebec, (c) The principal terms of the Agreement include the free exchange of information between Federal and Provincial Immigration
November 20, 1975

Officers that may assist in the recruitment of immigrants destined to Quebec, the opportunity for the Province to comment on potential immigrants destined to Quebec and the establishment of the staff of the Province abroad, their location and accommodation.
2.	Yes. The Agreement allows the Province to review applications of potential immigrants destined to Quebec or who in the opinion of the Canada Immigration Officer may be destined to Quebec and to comment on these cases. However, the final decision with respect to the selection of immigrants remains with the Federal Government. No other Province has signed a similar Federal-Provincial Agreement.
3.	The Province of Quebec may establish staff on a permanent or temporary basis in a Canadian diplomatic or consular mission where there is a Canadian Immigration capacity and where this is deemed possible or, if this is not possible, in a "Maison du Quebec" or elsewhere in cities where a Canadian Immigration capacity exists. Under the terms of the previous Agreement (Lang/Cloutier) the Province could request to have officers present in any Canadian diplomatic mission where this was deemed possible and during the life of the Lang/Cloutier Agreement the Province established officers in Athens, Beirut, Brussels and Rome.
4.	Yes.
5.	(a) The Agreement is intended to encourage immigration to Quebec of French-speaking or potentially Frenchspeaking immigrants who have the ability to integrate rapidly and successfully into Quebec and Canadian society. (b) No.


Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve): 1.	Since the inception of the Local Initiatives Programme, has money been allocated to the Constituency of Villeneuve and, if so, in what amount?
2.	For each approved project in the Constituency, what (a) is the title (b) is the allocated sum (c) is the year of acceptance (d) is the name of the municipality concerned (e) are the number of jobs which have been created?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. As statistics for the 1971-72 Local Initiatives Program were not maintained on a constituency basis, the total amount of funding to the constituency since the Program's inception cannot be ascertained. However, a total of $1,937,834 was contracted to Local Initiatives Program projects with addresses in the constituency of Villeneuve under the 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75 Programs.
2. (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e): See table below:
Number
Project title 1972-73 Animation Com-	Amount of funding	Location	of Jobs Createdmunautaire Comite de loisirs de	$125,246	Val d'Or	96Louvicourt Horizon Nouveau-La	8,424	Louvicourt	4Vie recommence	32,261	Val d'Or	9
Order Paper Questions
			Number
Project title	Amount of	Location	of Jobs
	funding		Created
Video TV Corporation Municipale	23,868	Chibougamau	11de Barville Pro jet d'initiatives	45,630	Barraute	15locales-Municipality de La Motte	160,942	La Motte	53Centre d'entraide	communautaire	70,356	Senneterre	19Camp Lacorne Garderie Com-	45,630	Val d'Or	23munautaire La Garderie "les 30	65,731	Chibougamau	13petits poucets" Municipality de la ville	56,558	Val d'Or	13de Cadillac	74,529	Cadillac	37Ville de Seneterre Community Action	58,617	Senneterre	32Program Mistassini Indian Band	77,337	Chibougamau	31Chez le petit prince	46,455	Malartic	10Projet Scouts Club de ski-Mont	7,371	Level-sur-Quevillon	4Surprise Centre de loisirs munici-	7,371	Level-sur-Quevillon	5paux Initiative locale comite	11,700	Lebel-sur-Quevillon	4des citoyens de Lacorne Inc.	21,294	Lacorne	13Parc de maisons mobiles Village Minier (Bour-	87,867	Val d'Or	34lamaque) Aqueduc-fegout-filectri-	13,940	Val d'Or	10cite	64,000	Chibougamau	321973-74	Plage Colombienne La Garderie "les 30	24,960	Cadillac	8petits poucets" Garderie "Chez le petit	32,492	Val d'Or	13prince" Centre d'entraide	22,135	Malartic	8communautaire	45,350	Senneterre	17Le Bien-etre des families Atelier d'artisanat "Les	27,664	Chapais	10Mains agiles" Garderie communautaire	35,970	Lacorne	13"La Coccinelle"	22,625	Chibougamau	9Centre d'artisanat V.A.L.S. Variete Action	23,468	Val d'Or	9Loisirs Service Accueil pour alcooliques	28,860	Val d'Or	10et toxicomanes	10,310	Malartic	41974-75	Atelier d'artisanat "Les	Mains agiles" Parc d'amusement en	13,400	Lacorne	3plein air Initiatives Locales des	17,125	Senneterre	5organismes de Lacorne Amenagement Entretien	33,380	Lacorne	12Base Plein Air Lac Mourrier	35,620	Malartic	10Amenagement du centre Obalski S.O.S. Service-Orienta-	9,025	Chibougamau	8tion-Secours	13,942	Val d'Or	3L'Atelier Botricot	19,872	Riviere-Heva	6
Suivi de l'etude socio-economique et relance de l'economie de
29956-351/2

November 20, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Project title	Amount of	Location	Number of JobsCadillac	funding 10,960	Cadillac	Created 3Le Bien-etre des families	15,140	Chapais	6Centre de loisirs de l'age d'or	22,070	Barraute	7Centre d'entraide communautaire	50,284	Seneterre	17Atelier d'artisanat de Malartic	24,311	Malartic	7Projet centre de loisirs (Construction)	25,000	Sullivan	16Renovation des endroits de loisirs du centre communautaire	28,106	Lebel-sur-Quevillon	8Le Cri	18,460	Val d'Or	5C.C.V.S. Centre Communautaire de Val-Senneville	32,940	Val d'Or	10Developpement de collectivites rurales	27,400	La Motte	8Pro jet d'action communautaire	14,960	Obedjiwan	7Centre d'artisanat	16,700	Val d'Or	5Centre recreatif de Louvicourt	14,248	Louvicourt	4Accueil pour alcooliques et toxicomanes	13,440	Malartic	5Atelier fichelles	18,688	Malartic	6Amenagement municipal	28,767	La Motte	8ferabliere colombienne	10,686	Cadillac	3La Ruche Artisanale de Cadillac	19,965	Cadillac	6Conservation des bassins laitiers	10,684	Rouyn	5Amenagement de terrain de roulottes	13,700	Barraute	10


Mr. Brisco: What costs are involved in the production and presentation of a budget?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: It is not possible to provide a specific reply to this question. The costs involved in the production and presentation of a budget vary from year to year.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question no. 3,502 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

1972 AND 1974 ELECTION EXPENDITURES


Mr. Fortin: 1.	In regard to the general elections of 1972 and 1974, by constituency what were the total and detailed expenditures of the government for (a) printing (b) polls (c) enumeration (d) expenses and fees of reporting officers (e) miscellaneous items?
2.	What were the expenditures for the vote of military personnel?

3.	What were the total and detailed expenditures of the Chief Electoral Officer for (a) election material (b) telegrams (c) messenger services (d) telephone (e) postage (f) miscellaneous items?
4.	What was the total government expenditure for each election?
5.	What was the number of (a) eligible voters (b) actual voters?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Are the remaining questions allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova) moved:: That this House, noting the public is concerned about recent disclosures of improprieties in the conduct of public affairs, as evidenced by events resulting in criminal prosecutions with respect to government dredging contracts, the Estey Air Canada inquiry, and disturbing reports about government leasing-concessions of airport duty-free shops, urges the government to take immediate action to restore public confidence in the government's efforts to control conflict of interest and other improprieties of public officials, most especially with regard to government contract and leasing procedures and practices.
He said: Mr. Speaker, during this opposition day motion I hope that apart from the normal amount of debate and controversy which this sort of exercise inevitably involves there will be an attempt to look objectively at certain procedures and habits involving leasing and consulting practices by the government that have developed over the years. I trust there are members of parliament from all parties who recognize that normal political patronage- which everyone who is a realist concedes is part of our political system-can, if allowed to remain unchecked and unsupervised, escalate into something that can become very ugly and to a great extent undermine the trust and credibility of any government under whose administration it is perceived to become rampant. Indeed, if allowed to become a way of life it can bring all those in public life into disrepute.
In discussing the matter of Sky Shops and Mirabel, which recently has been the subject of a good deal of editorial comment and news features in leading publications across the country and, indeed, mentioned extensively in parliament during the past few weeks, it is not my intention to overemphasize these particular situations but, rather, to use them as a focal point to discuss what I believe to be a wider and more important issue, namely, that some very sloppy practices and imprecise guidelines, together with a certain amount of favouritism, are prevalent today in the use of consultants and in the granting of leases and concessions by this government. I hope that speakers from the government side of the House will be able to tell us what progress is being made on the implementation of conflict of interest rules for senators


November 20, 1975

and members of parliament, and that we will not have the government House leader say, as he has in the past, that cabinet ministers should be subject to no more stringent rules in this regard than ordinary members of parliament.
I do not believe, however, that ministers, MPs or senators ought to be forced to divest themselves of all they have worked for while in private life simply because they have become part of our country's parliament. But there is a need for more comprehensive guidelines.
There seems to be, in my humble opinion, a lack of appreciation or perception by the government that the funds it administers must be used judiciously and that public property must not become the private preserve of the government's political friends. I think it is significant that I have had colleagues from different parties, including the one which governs our country, tell me they are not antagonistic to the course of action I have followed in focusing attention on matters such as the one I am going to discuss today which I believe to be politically improper and which involve an apparent lack of good judgment and business ethics.
Members of parliament who take an interest in the way that public properties are utilized and the terms of contracts involving governments can save the taxpayer a good deal of money. For example, I feel that a current exchange between myself and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) might serve as a good example of this sort of thing. This minister and I have been discussing a possible variation in the garbage contract for the city of Ottawa which involves the federal government. By reviewing the terms of bids which quoted different figures for the federal portion of the contract and by severing one of these bids from the contract, the end result may well be a saving of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the taxpayers of Canada. Should the Minister of Public Works feel he can take this practical course of action with the resulting saving, all of us, I am sure, with non-partisan views will commend him for it.
As far as Sky Shops, that suddenly famous duty-free establishment in Montreal, is concerned, a perusal of its financial records indicates that this firm paid substantially less than it should have, for several years, for the use of government facilities at the Montreal international airport at Dorval. Had a more realistic fate been assessed, comparable, for example, to that at the Toronto international airport for a similar establishment, Sky Shops could still have showed a very good return on its investment and the federal treasury would have been in receipt of a great deal of extra money from the lease of this public property.
I am convinced that at Mirabel, as well, proper bidding procedures were not followed and that a number of firms did not receive fair treatment when they submitted tenders for the privilege of operating a duty-free merchandising establishment there. In passing, one should look at the monopoly situation-a double-barrelled monopoly, in fact that Sky Shops enjoys: on the one hand, an exclusive right from the Liquor Control Board of the province of Quebec to sell, and on the other hand an exclusive lease from the Department of Transport, one monopoly dovetailing into the other and each justifying the renewal of the
Confidence in Government
other. This is not a very healthy situation. Perhaps the government ought to consider using its sovereign power to bypass provincial liquor boards and deal directly in cases such as this concerning the sale and distribution of spirits. That is something I think the government should consider.
Sky Shops is, as this House knows, a very interesting company. It appears that concessions were given by this organization in many forms. A senator, a former Union Nationale member of the Quebec legislature, made windfall profits quickly and for no apparent logical reason, at least based on strictly business considerations. It is obvious, as well, that Sky Shops was not reluctant at all to give certain prominent people favourable opportunities to acquire their stock at bargain basement rates. Customs officials, Department of Transport personnel and others received gifts from Sky Shops. To their credit, some of the recipients of larger gifts returned them, but that does not remove the need to scrutinize the motives of the executives of Sky Shops who, it would appear, are clearly in contravention of section 110 of the Criminal Code of Canada in giving television sets to federal employees, regardless of whether the sets were returned.
One has to question the motives of people who would put government employees in this sort of position. The fact, also, that P. Lawson Travel, part of the very considerable business empire of Thomcorps, paid what would appear to be an extraordinarily high price for the shares of Sky Shops which at the time was doing business at an airport soon to be over-shadowed by Mirabel, to which it would ostensibly lose its international flights, does nothing to dispel my feeling that part of the consideration was the knowledge that Sky Shops had the inside track on other duty-free operations which would be established in the future, particularly at Mirabel, and nothing in the ensuing course of events has changed my impression in this regard. I hope the government can do this. One of my colleagues will be developing this theme later.
Let us consider what happened to some of the other bidders who were unsuccessful in their attempts at Mirabel. I have one example of a man who in good faith endeavoured to obtain the duty-free concession at Mirabel in competition with some of the other nine bidders, including Sky Shops. I had a notary obtain a deposition, and the deponent, Mr. K. S. Kohli, is prepared to elaborate on it and to give other information if provided with a proper forum such as a judicial inquiry. However, I will quote some relevant parts of his statutory declaration and will be pleased to table the entire declaration, the original, if it is the desire of the House that I do so. One of the interesting things about the guidelines put out by the department for duty-free concessions is the fact that the department violated its own guidelines, something that does not exactly engender confidence in the system. The second paragraph in a Ministry of Transport publication reads:
The policy of the Department of Transport concerning the award of contracts for duty-free concession is as follows:
Once the bids have been evaluated, the department will advise each
bidder of the rank of each bid, in relation to the others.
This has not been done on several occasions. Perhaps some of the relevant parts of the deposition of Mr. Kirpal Singh Kohli, a Canadian citizen residing at 7910 Cote St. Luc, in the city of Montreal, province of Quebec, will

November 20, 1975
Confidence in Government
amplify some of the feelings of injustice that several people have conveyed to me as a result of the procedure. Mr. Kohli deposes and declares:
That I was a tenderer in response to the call of the Department of Transport of Canada for tenders for the duty-free shop concession at Montreal international airport at Mirabel in the province of Quebec.
I will not read all of this, Mr. Speaker, because it is fairly lengthy. He continues:
That upon the bids being opened and announced by an official of the Department of Transport, it appeared and I verily believed and do believe that my bid was the highest and the most remunerative to the Government of Canada and, indeed, I was congratulated as the successful bidder by certain of the other tenders;
That subsequently my tender deposit, being $20,000 in negotiable securities of Canada, was returned to me by the Department of Transport without explanation;
That knowing that the tender deposit should be retained until the tender was awarded, I inquired of an official of the Department of Transport for the reason why the deposit had been returned to me and I was informed that a mistake had been made and that the deposit should be returned to the Department of Transport;
That I returned the tender deposit to the Department of Transport in other negotiable securities of Canada in the amount of $20,000.
So he submitted that amount the second time. He goes on to say:
That on or about August 26, 1974, my tender deposit was again returned to me with a letter, as by reference to the copy of such letter, marked Exhibit A-
This is appended to the deposition. The letter simply states that the $20,000 was returned apparently for the second time and then goes on to say that the results of tendering for the duty-free shop will be announced in due course. Mr. Kohli finishes his deposition by saying:
That the letter mentioned in the preceding paragraph was the last communication I received from any official of the Department of Transport, contrary to the policy of the Department of Transport as set out in the document, of which a copy, marked Exhibit B, is attached to this my declaration.
That was the document in respect of the letter to which I referred a few moments ago. This paragraph is interesting, also:
That I was first informed that the Department of Transport has awarded the concession for the duty free shop at Montreal international airport at Mirabel aforesaid when comment thereon was made in the public press and other media following upon the presentation of a petition to the House of Commons of Canada on or about November 3, 1975-
These are one man's feelings. It may be said that he is exhibiting certain negative feelings because he was unsuccessful, but there is at least another bidder who had some interesting things to say. One of my colleagues will be dealing with this in due course. Some of the documents setting out the Sky Shops dealings over the years with the federal government are most interesting. We trust the government will table soon some of the more relevant letters and documents other than those which the opposition has supplied them. As the House knows, the situation outlining some of the rather unusual aspects of Sky Shops relationship with DOT and Senator Giguere has been a matter of public record since November 3. But at no time since then has the government tabled any documents which would shed further light on this matter. The government has gone into its usual defensive crouch.

I am sure Mr. Anton, the founder of Sky Shops, would like to testify before a judicial inquiry. This man, who founded the company and did all the work necessary to make it into a successful business, seems to have been a victim of his apparent requirement to surround himself with people who were politically acceptable. It is by no means certain that he did this voluntarily, and his reward ultimately was to lose control of his company and receive considerably less for his stock than the other shareholders. Frankly, I feel sorry for Mr. Anton who has a distinguished war record and appears to be hardworking and essentially a good type of person. But that is for another forum. Another thing troubles me about this particular aspect. It is exemplified in a statement made by, it is true, another unsuccessful bidder, but it is a statement that the man who furnished the information to me would be pleased to amplify were he given the proper forum in which to do so.
Many people involved have indicated their interest in testifying in what they perceive to be the proper forum. Clarence Campbell has made this remark, and Senator Giguere himself said something to that effect. In any event, such a remark made by a business associate to another bidder, a man who already operates a duty-free operation in Newfoundland, is very startling if it is true. While he was working on the bid, an associate of his, an acquaintance, came to him and said words to this effect.


Otto Emil Lang: Who is saying these words?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The name of the man who made this remark-I thank the minister for his interjection-will be divulged by Mr. Farkus, who was an unsuccessful bidder, to the proper official, preferably, as he suggested, in the context of a judicial inquiry. I realize that to some extent what I am saying is hearsay and I do not intend to dignify it as anything more than that, but it is significant because of the attitude it conveys. It is not that terrible. I will clean up the wording as I go along, so that it can be phrased in parliamentary language. He said:
Why are you fuddle-duddling around with a bid for a duty-free shop at Mirabel? Sky Shops have that sewed up. The Liberal bagman has a piece of the action.
This is worth investigating. We will never get to the bottom of this matter unless we have an investigation. Like Mr. Kohli, this bidder will, under proper circumstances, be pleased to provide more details. This type of remark, true or not, has serious implications.


An hon. Member:: Did you say "true or not"? It has no implication if it is not true.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: That is why we want an inquiry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Let us find out whether it is true or not. This type of attitude undermines the entire system.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: A prima facie allegation.


Otto Emil Lang: Stick to facts.
November 20, 1975


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I am advised to try to stick to facts. I thank the minister for his advice, but at times we do not get much of an example from over there.


An hon. Member:: Tell us something else that is true or not.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I suggest that this type of attitude undermines faith in the system and that the attitude that the fix, or bribe, is the quickest road to success brought us the dredging scandal which, as all Canadians now know, is a multi-million dollar fraud.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Don't get excited.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Yes, don't get excited, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) says. Just relax. The philosophy of the fix, or bribe, must be stopped from spreading further, I suggest to the minister. How would we, as' members of parliament, feel if our elections were determined or were thought to be determined by any suggestion of bribery? Yet many people in the business community, rightly or wrongly, feel that their endeavours are governed by things like this; and the more this type of belief spreads, the more justification there will be to adopt this type of philosophy.
It is obvious that the government and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) do not know quite what to do, except to instruct the RCMP to investigate, and I commend them for this part of it. But there has been no tabling of documents, no statement by any minister on motions, not even a press release, and no indication that anybody intends to do anything but stonewall the entire matter and wait until the pressure subsides. There are suggestions that an RCMP investigation is sufficient. How ridiculous! No one can really believe that the types of questions that have been raised thus far in this affair, and will be raised by my colleagues and myself in the future, can be successfully considered, defined and discussed in the context of an RCMP investigation, however useful such an investigation may be to amass data and evidence. It is necessary to have a forum presided over by a distinguished jurist, assisted by able counsel for all interested parties, to consider a situation such as the Sky Shops affair.
We in the opposition consider it very strange that the government appears to take the attitude that we must apparently prove beyond a reasonable doubt that inquiries should be made. Where is the government's sense of responsibility? Have they no self-starting mechanism at all? It may be that after an inquiry and the ensuing report, the government can announce there was no wrongdoing at any time and that their methods of conducting business and dealing with matters such as those at issue today are so efficient and straightforward that they require no change in procedure. I, personally, hope that this will be the case. But I would like, for example, to see them explain certain contractual aspects of the Mirabel operation, even getting down to such fundamentals as to how people are put on planes. It is pretty basic, I would think, to the success of any airport. There are 13 or 14 passenger transport vehicles now at Mirabel each costing in excess of $400,000 and, as a matter of interest, manufactured by Booth Airside Systems
Confidence in Government
Incorporated of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., a subsidy of Booth Computer Corporation of California.
General Aviation, the company which has the contractual rights to operate these vehicles-the same company, incidentally, that had difficulty at Heathrow airport in the United Kingdom, reportedly because of labour problems- is not supplying technically competent people pursuant to the agreement they have with DOT, in that the operators of the PTVs are supposed to be the equivalent of experienced, heavy-duty equipment operators. I suggest to the minister that they are not. Late in October, for example, a PTV at Mirabel came in contact with a telephone pole and smashed a couple of cars. A small incident, but indicative. The operators and maintenance personnel are paid considerably less than their DOT counterparts and General Aviation makes a nice profit because of the comparatively low wages their men are paid.
Because of possible labour difficulties or other complications, one has to assume that DOT has provided back-up personnel to maintain and operate this equipment, since it is the only way to get people on the aircraft. It would be disastrous if that operation were disrupted. We know that the equipment is so unrelaible that approximately 14 machines are kept at Mirabel so that 8 or 10 of them have a reasonable chance of working at any given time. One has to ask why the Minister of Transport would countenance such a wasteful and stupid arrangement. Why do we need to have General Aviation operate these machines at all? Cannot DOT do the job? Also, why have these PTVs never been given a proper post-assembly check?
If the minister wants to know why at the official opening of Mirabel the PTV for the VIPs malfunctioned at such an embarrassing time, I can tell him. I leave to his imagination what is going to happen when these machines have to operate in the type of climatic conditions they will face during the winter. Is this the kind of expertise, in the conception of how to load passengers on planes, that approximately $50 million worth of consulting fees has achieved for Mirabel-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: -an airport which, I suggest, is more like a gigantic reproach to reason than an airport. In this country we spend nearly $1 billion for consultants and outside services. Admittedly, some of these services, such as the Corps of Commissionaires, some teachers and accountants, are worthy and necessary, but it is the consultants themselves that disturb me. We pay approximately $5 billion a year for our public service, plus the money on consultants. Consultants have become a drain on this country. We cannot afford to have an expensive public service and an army of hangers-on, only some of whom are legitimate consultants, to help our public service do jobs they are being paid to do themselves.
It is interesting to look at the budget of some of our smaller provinces in relation to this type of budgeting by the federal government. Some of my figures may be a year old, some are based on projections, but they give a reasonable indication. I am not swearing to their absolute accuracy. In Manitoba, the current total provincial budget is around $1 billion; in New Brunswick it is less than $1 billion; in Saskatchewan it is a little over $1 billion; in

November 20, 1975
Confidence in Government
Nova Scotia it is about this amount; in P.E.I. it is $185 million; in Newfoundland it is almost exactly $1 billion. It horrifies me to see, in relation to what it costs to run an entire province, what this government is spending on consultants. It is interesting, also, to speculate whether, if the former minister of communications and chairman of the CRTC had been successful in Hochelaga, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would have hired a $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 a year assistant to do the job that Mr. Juneau has been given. Would the job exist if Mr. Juneau had won in Hochelaga?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: If the Prime Minister had a business of his own and wanted to hire his friend and put him on the payroll, that would be a nice gesture indeed; but do the people of Canada need this political reject in the Prime Minister's office at this time of restraint? I think not.
I know the government is deeply embarrassed about Sky Shops, Senator Giguere, Mirabel and a number of other things, and I know that it has good cause for its embarrassment. My thinking has changed a bit during the past few days and I doubt whether there will be an inquiry. I say this for good reason. I think we may not have an inquiry because the government realizes that with all the facts which would come out, facts which the Senator probably knows, about patronage, the resulting scandal would be too much for even this government to bear. Under ordinary circumstances, and if the subject were not so delicate, there would be a good chance that an inquiry would be held, particularly in view of the number of newspapers and leading columnists who have stated unequivocally that this should be done.
Several months ago there was an inquiry into some aspects of Air Canada which I feel sure will ultimately prove valuable and constructive, and I once more compliment the former minister of transport for taking that course of action when he did. There were no RCMP raids, but there was an inquiry. Recently there was an inquiry announced into the Panarctic Aircraft crash, but the amount of agonizing that had to take place before it was done had to be seen to be believed.
In closing, I wish to say to the government that it should put its affairs in order, stop pending taxpayers' money on unnecessary luxuries as if our supply of money were unending and stop paying off friends with needless, nonproductive jobs. If the jobs are necessary and productive, no one will be disturbed if they are given to competent and honest Liberals-and there are many of them around; I am the first to admit that. No one ought to be upset in that case. But I say to the Prime Minister that, despite his recurring delusions of grandeur, I doubt if there is a serious economist in Canada who is not convinced that our present economic difficulties are caused to a large extent by the spending habits of the Prime Minister and his government.
If we are reasonably to expect Canadians to support the measures parliament is now considering to solve our economic problems, measures which require a considerable amount of self-denial by citizens of this country, this

government must show the way by its example. A good way to begin would be to make a diligent effort to find present abuses through an inquiry, curb them, and in future demonstrate more respect for proper business ethics and procedures in dealing with public properties and privileges.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
I have carefully read the motion put forward by the official opposition and I want to say at the outset that it is a good motion. I particularly like some of the words in it; for example, "improprieties", which I will discuss later. I also wish to congratulate the hon. member who spoke for the official opposition. He is a good member of parliament; he does his homework.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We all know that he is an honest man and that he will keep up the good work. However, I suggest to my good friend that although what he has been doing over the last number of months is good work, he should begin to realize that the things he has discovered which have occurred inside and outside government operations, both in the public and private sectors, are nothing more than symptoms of the kind of disease which is prevalent in our whole society. It is really a plague. It is not just peculiar to the party that happens to be the government, whether it be NDP, Liberal or Conservative.


Mr. Nielsen:: What was that first one?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is not just peculiar to one group of individuals in a particular sector of our society. It is a disease and a plague in our entire system. The hon. member has found improprieties. The dictionary defines "impropriety" as indecency, and it is very prevalent in our society. I am not one who is partisan, but whether a system is free enterprise, socialist, communist or whatever, in that system there must be an element of puritanism, an element of doing as well as we can at whatever work we do in an honest and equitable way, believing that there are rewards other than money and influence, such as appreciation and recognition for what we are doing. If a man stands shaving in front of the mirror in the morning and is able to look himself in the eye and not feel embarrassed but proud of what he is trying to do, whether it turns out that he is right or wrong, it is because he is doing as well as he is able to.
It may seem strange to some of my colleagues that I am trying to be somewhat philosophical about this. I am not trying to pretend for one moment that any one person, idea or system is perfect, or that no one ever made a mistake. The question is not what mistakes were made, but how they were made and for what motives. I wish to say quite bluntly and frankly that most of the world is governed and victimized by totalitarian systems and free enterprise systems, and those systems contain within them elements of greed, corruption, improprieties, or whatever other nice language one has to use in a motion before the House of Commons.
November 20, 1975

I will deal with our system because that is the one we live under. I would deal with the other systems if I were living under them, even at the risk of going to a labour camp. The mythology of free enterprise requires that profits be maximized and that we make all the bucks we can, as quickly as we can. It is all right to cut corners, to make mutually profitable deals and not to worry about who may be hurt. That is part of the system. Ethical businesses, ethical businessmen and ethical free enterprisers would be the first to turn down a case of whisky at Christmas time from business associates or competitors. They would not send a case of whisky to a friendly politician whether he be at the municipal, provincial or federal level.


Mr. Mazankowski:: What about the socialists?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If the system is so good-and I recognize the frailties and mistakes each and every one of us makes as individuals-it would seem to me the system would require that the mistakes are not made in that way. They would be genuine human mistakes of judgment, or even incompetence-which all of us are born with to some degree-but not mistakes of a case of whisky at Christmas, or sending a gift to a municipal councillor, an MLA or a member of parliament. I doubt very much if any member of this House has not had a gift offered to him at some time in his tenure as a member of parliament. Whether they have been accepted, I do not know and I would not presume to know. It is part of the system, part of the game.
I want to give full credit and honour to the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). He is an honest man, and is seen to be an honest man. Also, I am confident that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and others on the government side are just as unhappy and concerned about this matter as anybody else. I am confident-and I hope my confidence is not misplaced-that they will carry out the most hardnosed inquiries possible and lay charges where they are required.
I am not going to cast personal aspersions against the Liberals or Tories, because I am not too happy about some members of the NDP either. We are all people. I condemn the kind of system that the hon. member for Central Nova represents, that members on the government side represent-going to church every Sunday and beating your neighbour the rest of the week. If you are to get ahead, the system requires that you be good at your job. That is not good enough for the so-called free society. If you have some friends and send a few cases of whisky, that gives you the jump on your so-called competitors in the free enterprise system. It is normal practice. But Air Canada may have been caught. If there were the accountability required of Canadian Pacific or other transportation companies who operate in Canadian airports as is required for Air Canada, I am sure the hon. member for Central Nova would have an even more interesting time than he is having.
I am glad this question has come to the surface and that the smell is getting around. Don't let us lay it at the door of Air Canada, however, or whoever may be in government departments, or contractors or dredgers or anybody else. That has been the name of the game since the turn of the
Confidence in Government
century. We just have to look around in our own communities, in our constituencies, amongst our own associates, relatives and friends, to see the state of mind and the attitude. If these free enterprisers think there is some value to the system that is worth saving, they had better hurry. The public is not going to stand for it. Each day more communists and totalitarians are created through the free enterpriser's conduct of his own affairs and the way he treats his fellow citizens. Think of the poor American bomber pilot who dropped another load on Viet Nam and commented, "I wonder how many more communists we created today?"
It is not what we say, but what we do, that counts; who we do it to, how we deal with people and with one another. Those right-wing reactionary dinosaurs who run loose in our society had better remember that if it is all right to hang the person who commits a premeditated murder or murders a police officer or jail guard who is on duty, it should be equally proper to hang the corporate president who defrauds people of $4,000 or $5,000 then gets a jail sentence of 18 months but only serves four months and goes home every weekend.
The poor slob who is unemployed and has a couple of kids, who knocks over a service station and steals a few bills, gets a three-year sentence and serves 18 months. Is it any wonder there is disrespect for the law, and cynicism? Is it any wonder people say, "To hell with you, Jack; I'm all right." That's what the system has taught them. Whether it is a civil servant in the middle or upper income levels, or a lawyer trying to get a contract for a company, or a corporation president, they are all caught at the same game. That is the fatal weakness of this so-called free enterprise system.
As a socialist, I will not take a back seat to the free enterpriser when it comes to the work ethic. The work has to be worth while, whether it be for Air Canada, or as a member of parliament or whatever-it has to be because you love the work you are doing. How much you get paid for it is secondary, as long as you get some recognition for it. About four or five years ago a businessman in Regina who was not a member of the NDP-he would not vote for me even if I were the only one running-sent me a letter, not a case of whisky or a pat on the back. He said, "I think you are doing your best at being a good member of parliament. You are working hard. I do not agree with much of what you say and do, but I thought I would write and let you know that I think you are doing a good job, even if I do not agree with the job you are doing." This man is a free enterpriser in the best sense of the word. It is difficult for me to concede good sense when it comes to free enterprisers, but this letter concerns the work ethic.
When I look at the word "improprieties" in the resolution presented by the official opposition, I think we all have glass roofs on our houses, as individuals, as parties and as a society. While it might be a great deal of fun to find some Liberals with their hands in the till, sooner or later some Conservatives and New Democrats and Credi-tistes will get caught. We are all part of the system. As an agnostic, let me say to all Christians: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
I hope the efforts of the hon. member for Central Nova will stir the government into taking expeditious action
9286

November 20, 1975
Confidence in Government
wherever there is impropriety. I hope those found guilty of impropriety will be treated under the law as the people expect.


Mr. Reynolds:: Hang them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). If a corporation president who has defrauded people out of $200,000 or $300,000 can get an 18-month sentence and then get out after three or four months and appear every Saturday night on "Hockey Night in Canada", it is no wonder people become cynical and say, "To hell with it". There is good reason. People whose politics are diametrically opposed to mine scream at me about law and order. They are the ones who are part of the system that allows such a corporation president to serve four months and then appear on "Hockey Night in Canada" every Saturday night, while the poor slob who has knocked over a service station gets three years. If the revelations of the hon. member for Central Nova result in people being found guilty of improprieties or breaking the law, I hope the fines and jail sentence will be in proportion to the enormity of the crime. The blue collar criminal is treated more severely than the white collar criminal.


An hon. Member:: What is a blue collar crime?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I think the hon. member knows that as well as I do. There are blue collar criminals in his constituency. The fellow who knocks over a service station is treated more severely than the bank accountant who embezzles, the corporate president who defrauds and has lots of money to spend on his defence, and the senior civil servant who can disappear or travel to other parts of the world. The poor slob who knocks over a service station is given much harsher treatment than is meted out to our so-called leaders, to the white collar people, the mandarins, corporate presidents or members of parliament when they go wrong. As they ought to set an example, they should pay a greater penalty than the rank and file is called on to pay. That is all I suggest.
I don't suppose the men being investigated in connection with the hon. member's motion are any worse than others. Yet, for a change such crimes ought to be severely punished. I am not pleading for mitigation. I don't know why I should help free enterprisers who think our system is working so well. If they want to make their system as good as they say it is, they should forget about making all the fast bucks they can. They cannot forget Christian principles seven days a week, 24 hours a day. If they want to avoid totalitarianism in its worst form, of the left or the right, our free enterprisers had better change radically and deal with wrongdoers in their ranks as severely as they deal with other wrongdoers.


An hon. Member:: Are there any NDP wrongdoers?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I say to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that NDP supporters are not perfect. We have made lots of mistakes, some of them dandies.


An hon. Member:: The truth will out!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When we catch one of our own in wrongdoing, we deal with him severely. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me 30 seconds to finish my speech. I hope the official opposition will speak on much more than is contained in this motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. Does the House give its consent to the hon. member continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members for letting me talk a couple of minutes longer. If they are lucky, I shall talk no longer, as I must hurry to the airport to deliver passports to desperate constituents.
My philosophy considers what we can all contribute to society. It is not enough to be a puritan, a law and order man, to think as the dukes, lords and earls thought a couple of centuries ago. Such attitudes no longer work. If you are the head of a dredging company, a director of Sky Shops, a trade union leader, member of parliament, garbage collector, or the janitor of this building, when there is work to do, do your best no matter what your work is. The work itself is important, not how fast you can make the bucks or how quickly you can get ahead of the other guy. Greed is the motive of our system, and it will destroy us. The alternative will be a totalitarian system which none of us wants. It matters not whether you are a garbage collector; without your work, the city of Ottawa grinds to a halt. Everybody, from the Prime Minister down, needs the work of the garbage collector. It is important and noble work. Surely he should not need to give his union head or employer a case of whisky in order to get a better deal; yet that is what we do now.
We should all do our best work, not because we are paid but because we want to. We are not members of parliament for the pay. If we are criticized, often we deserve criticism. We are not here for the money, although we need money to keep balogna in the fridge and a few bucks to put away for our retirement. But that is not why we are here. The important thing is work for work's sake. I hope that does not make me sound like a puritan, because I am not. The point is, we must work because there is work to do, no matter what it is.
If the free enterprise system works so well, why cannot a reputable dredging company, or a company operating dutyfree shops, make an honest tender for an honest job? Why is it necessary to collude and bribe? Surely the reason is evident. I ask my friends on my right-I call them my friends because I like them as people-to think on this: for what do they stand? They support a system which will betray our nationhood and bring about the very difficulties which other countries have gone through. It will happen, if we are not careful, through conflict of interest, impropriety or whatever you call it. Consider what Karl Marx, Mao Tse-tung and Jesus Christ have said to use over these yea so many years. In the long run it matters not if we are Liberal, Conservative or NDP. What matters is our manner of living together, the society we create and how we treat one another.
The hon. member for Central Nova has worked diligently, as I said when I began my speech. But his findings
November 20, 1975

illustrate nothing more than how our social system works. He has merely discovered how a carpenter, president of a construction company or anyone else would behave in similar circumstances. No doubt the people involved in the business he investigated are basically good-as good as anyone else. But our system requires them to operate in the way they do. The situation is, if you want to get ahead, you had better make sure your company gets the contract. Do what you must to get the contract; that's the name of the game.
In case my friends on my right are overly enthusiastic later this evening, let me tell them that there is far less wrongdoing of this sort in public life, in governments, than in private business. But what is happening once in a while in government business is prevalent in private business, and has been for decades. We all know this to be the case, and no one should try to kid Joe Citizen about that kind, upright free enterpriser who goes to church every Sunday and tries to kick his neighbour in the backside the rest of the week.
There are some lessons to be learned here. Of course, improprieties in government and in public institutions must be continually scrutinized, and public accountability has always to be there. Let us require the same, not only of each other and of ourselves but also of the private sector. Maybe what goes on income tax returns, which are inviolate and confidential, may need a look at as well. The mood that we all know is amongst our citizens, our constituents, is there for a very good reason. There is cynicism, disrespect for the law, disrespect of leaders of whatever political stripe, and it is there for a very good reason. They have good reason for being cynical and disrespectful and saying to hell with the work ethic and to hell with enjoying the kind of work they do. It is because they have been educated since they were so high to make all the bucks they can, to get ahead of their neighbours. They have been brainwashed by deceptive and false advertising. Their priorities have been misplaced, like the government's. It is more important to worry about deodorants and snowmobiles than houses or pensions. They can increase the amount of money for the Secretariat of Intergovernment Conferences by $700,000 according to the supplementary estimates, but CMHC's land acquisition program received only $200,000.
Do you wonder why the citizen in Gopher Gulch, or Toronto, or anywhere else, is cynical and disrespectful when he sees $200 a day people sitting in Ottawa or Toronto, or reads about them in the newspaper and he cannot make a down payment on a house which he will never live long enough to pay for? Do you wonder why? What about our priorities, as well as our ethics? There is a reason people are disrespectful, resentful and cynical. All of us know this. When we go home to our ridings, we run into it all the time. It is frightening. Benito Mussolinis, Joe Stalins and Adolph Hitlers do not happen by accident.
So in the course of what we say in this debate, in the course of what the government will be doing-and I am confident they will be doing it expeditiously, honestly and fairly in terms of looking into improprieties-I hope we will all give consideration to our own priorities, our own work ethic and restoring some confidence and support amongst people generally, no matter what political or reli-
Confidence in Government
gious beliefs they may hold. If we do not do that, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member for Central Nova has been working very diligently and well at will have gone for nought; it will have been pointless-because if you go back to 1870, whether it was Beauharnois, Sir John A. Macdonald, Wilfrid Laurier, or whoever we honour in our history, there is nothing new about this.
I would ask hon. members, again, whenever this happens in the course of wanting the free enterprise system to prevail, how many more totalitarians did you create in the course of carrying out the work of your system? If my hon. friends will do that, and if they succeed then, there will never be any need to elect an NDP government.


An hon. Member:: Good!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I hope they will think about that. I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. What I have had to say may have been disjointed, but it is something about which I feel very strongly, and I know my colleagues do. I think all hon. members of the House feel that way.
All I am doing is asking, on behalf of my colleagues, that in the months ahead we take a look at what we are doing, at our priorities, at how we deal with one another, at how we deal with citizens, and at how citizens deal with one another under what is supposed to be a profit-motive system. If we took a good look at that situation, I suspect we could do much better.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member who moved the motion before us today for giving us the opportunity to discuss a subject which is extremely important to the good reputation of government and Parliament itself.
Indeed we were asked lately to discuss the restriction program advocated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to fight inflation. When I took part in this debate, I pointed out the distinction we should make between expenditures and waste. I would like today to emphasize for a few minutes the absolute necessity to prevent at all cost the waste caused by mismanagement, shameful patronage and the unnecessary spending arising from conflicts of interest.
Every year, the Auditor General exposes to the House the many inconsiderate and unwarranted expenditures which result in budgetary inflation. The recommendations of the Auditor General are practically never taken in consideration. Instead, the integrity and objectivity of this watchdog of government spending are sometimes questioned, even by the Prime Minister. It would seem that there is a certain premeditation as regards honest management of public funds. Of course, recent disclosures concerning contracts given to duty-free shops in airports are a typical example of what favours can be granted to political friends. Why do those things happen? Why does anybody not denounce them? Why are we deaf and blind when we know very well that this is happening? Why are there not duly mandated people working to prevent such situations? In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this suggests a certain tacit agreement among the authorities of the various departments, the civil servants and the shark friends of the party in power, that are always ready to bite into public funds. I
29956-36Vi

November 20, 1975
Confidence in Government
cannot see why it should be impossible to prevent such incidents.
It is therefore very obvious that this motion is timely. Action should certainly be taken immediately so that the public may have confidence in the efforts of the government to control conflicts of interest, wastage and unworthy patronage. This is particularly important and urgent since we only have to listen to opinions expressed by taxpayers to see how the honesty and integrity of the government, and so, of all members of parliament, are abused. Unfortunately, the bad opinion that citizens have about their representatives is caused mostly by this type of careless and partisan action on the part of the government administration. In these years where authority has been undermined, where respect and politeness are considered outdated, where disorder, if not anarchy, is increasingly present, it is important to see that it is necessary and even essential that the reputation of our leaders remain intact.
Only those who are respected can be obeyed. Only the authority of those whose integrity and honesty is above suspicion can be accepted. It is therefore our duty and obligation to restore the public confidence which the government sometimes help undermine dangerously.
Mr. Speaker, some might say that nothing in this is new and that unworthy patronage and conflicts of interest have always existed. I would reply that we must not wallow in the mud just because some of our predecessors have done so.
I am therefore in complete agreement with this motion, and I hope that the government will soon show its good will and good faith in trying to correct this sad situation. It is all very well to ask the citizens to tighten their belts, to make a personal, a voluntary effort to fight inflation, but they should not at the same time witness such wastefulness of public funds, all the more so that only a small fraction of the fraudulent transactions are made public. Therefore, to prove the determination of the government to put an end to those deplorable abuses, a widespread inquiry should be launched immediately, that the real culprits of those unacceptable manoeuvres be denounced.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring my remarks to a close by pointing out that the people would be driven to despair if the government were to continue to evade the issue. I sincerely believe in the honesty and sincerity of the vast majority of Canadians. It is often said that a people have the leaders they deserve. To my mind, I feel our people deserve better.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like to start by saying that I am sorry the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) had to head off to deliver those passports to Regina before I could address a few remarks, through you, to him about his contribution to this debate. It is somewhat interesting that on a motion that dealt with proprieties of conduct in public affairs, he found it possible to address himself totally to the question of proprieties of conduct in private affairs.
I hope his colleague from Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) will convey a message to him. He thought it desirable to speak

some words in defence of the private enterprise system by way of giving it some advice. That was particularly touching since he is heading off to Saskatchewan, where not only does the provincial government, that belongs to the same party as he does, not think a great deal of the work ethic in terms of the ordinary sense of rewards and losses that go with it, but are setting a prime example of believing in taking from anyone who works and accomplishes something at any time that seems appropriate, leaving the losses with private individuals who put in their risk capital. I say that because it was a little strange to hear his flights of fancy about the private enterprise system, in face of that kind of endeavour.
The motion before the House was moved by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. McKay) and it raises a matter that members on all sides would want to take seriously at any time. The public is always concerned, and I am sure more so today than at almost any other period in our history, about the need for public affairs to be conducted in a scrupulously fair manner. They are insistent upon a high standard of conduct from government in the operation of matters of policy and the implementation of that policy. This government has been responding to that felt need by introducing a whole series of procedures and guidelines to assure, to the extent that it is possible to assure in any organization involving so many parts and so many people, that affairs are conducted according to the highest possible standards.
If there is increased responsibility on the part of government in this day to meet that proper public demand for high standards, I think there is also a high standard of responsibility demanded of politicians who represent constituencies in this House of Commons, particularly those who sit in opposition and who are therefore ordinarily engaged in criticizing and analysing. I think it is particularly important that in bringing forward criticisms or analyses, the most scrupulous conduct is in fact followed and observed.
I say this because there are some very important values in our society, and these values touch upon our very civil liberties: values such as the requirement of having proof before a proper court of law, the requirement of not subjecting persons to trial by innuendo or suggestion without charges first being established to the satisfaction of a law officer, whose duty it is to satisfy himself that there is the kind of case that warrants that kind of allegation to be put on the record. These are some very important principles, ones that I think all too often those who simply like to make news or to spread concern ignore at great peril to the foundations of our democratic and freedom-based system.
An inquiry of a broad-ranging nature is a technique that must sometimes be employed, perhaps to supplement other investigative techniques. But it is still true, and I hope members of the House understand this, that on the whole it is sound to allow investigative procedures to go forward in the usual way with experienced, trained investigators bringing forward matters for investigation, and then putting those matters in due course before a law officer of the Crown in order to decide whether specific action should be taken in relation to the matters originally alleged and now proved in a first-hand or prima facie way. These principles
November 20, 1975

were not lightly arrived at in our system, yet they are very important in protecting individuals who may be involved.
We have always, in this country of ours, been singularly fortunate in the quality of police investigation under the supervision of attorneys general across Canada and, indeed, in the quality of independence of attorneys general throughout the history of the country. That we have the best quality in these areas I think continues always to be important, and as we have them we should bear in mind that their strength of independence and integrity allows us to follow some of the time-honoured procedures that avoid the damage that can be done, damage both to individuals and, by the casting of innuendoes and aspersions abroad, to the system of government itself.
A government would be properly criticized at any time if it did not act promptly in relation to matters brought to its attention for investigation, whether it be misconduct, whether the police may be directly involved, or whether it be in the way of handling a particular matter or affair, in which case the proper road is to check the facts to see whether there was in fact an error, correct it where that can be done and take steps to assure that the system will avoid it happening again. These are the responsibilities of government.
We have before us a motion by the hon. member for Central Nova which refers to a number of supposed incidents requiring a degree of investigation and analysis.


Erik Nielsen: Supposed?


Otto Emil Lang: I said to the hon. member for Central Nova, or about him, the other day that certainly compared to some of his colleagues-and I was at that point only putting it that high-he was one of the more responsible members of the House. I grant that in the ordinary course he in fact shows a high degree of responsibility. I hope that will continue to be the target for him, rather than to take advantage of a political opportunity to introduce confusion rather than light, attempting thereby to gain a political advantage rather than the real, important advantage of better public service through bringing direct attention to the problems which exist.
I was distressed when I saw a report the other day that he had said these matters had to be trotted out one at a time, one after another, rather than brought before the authorities, in a group in order that they could be properly handled and investigated. He wanted to bring them out one at a time in order that he could sustain the momentum of public comment on these activities. I say that is a wrong attitude and that any member who has information about any kind of misconduct, or any kind of information that is at all reliable, has a duty to bring that information immediately to the authorities for investigation, or to the government if that be the appropriate way of launching an investigation, or directly to the law enforcement authorities.
It must be an important duty of any member of this House and, indeed, any citizen of this country to bring that information forward at once. I think it was obvious that the hon. member for Central Nova brought forward some important information. In the case of Sky Shops, of course,
Confidence in Government
the government's direct involvement was in relation to the granting of certain leases, first at Dorval and then at Mirabel, which involved that company. The government was not itself involved in the question of shareholding or dealings in the shares of that company.
There may be questions that arise out of the evidence that has come forward in that regard and, as hon. members know, immediately that material was before anyone in authority an investigation into these matters was undertaken. Indeed, the investigation was under way before the information was brought before the House by the hon. member for Central Nova. That, surely, is the kind of responsibility this government has in relation to matters that look as though something may be wrong or there may be some problem of conduct in relation to any particular action.
The famous dredging contracts are referred to, again, in the motion; I might say "dredged up", again, in the motion, although what was involved there was not, of course, the allegation of any wrongdoing on the part of the government. I would appreciate it if hon. members opposite would assist in the process of analysing the problem by saying that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever on the part of the government in relation to dredging, but that certain matters are now before the courts as a result of investigations which were launched, again by the government. These investigations were begun before the allegations were put before the House by an hon. member opposite.
In terms of public duty, what the government has done in a case like that is to see that an investigation takes place, to see that if there are charges to be laid they are then laid by the appropriate authority, which very often is the attorney general of a province when criminal law is involved, rather than a federal minister who does not ordinarily enforce criminal law. That is an example, I think, of the execution of proper diligence on the part of the government in relation to a matter which arose as a problem.
As I say, it would be appropriate and I think it would be desirable, in the interests of understanding, when public authority is under attack and when there is a real sign of a problem or lack of diligence, that in those cases where there is no evidence of such an act it is noted by hon. members. Then there would be the avoidance of what in this motion seems to be an interest in a particular situation which the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre could properly point out to the private sector and which does relate to the public sector.
Again, I suppose the reference to Air Canada and to the Estey report is of a somewhat doubtful nature in a motion relating to the conduct on the part of the federal authority although, of course, the corporation in question is a Crown corporation. Again, I know of no allegation on the part of anyone of any wrongdoing by the government. There were allegations or questions raised about certain matters or certain transactions, and the moment these came to light and to the attention of the government something was done. Indeed, in that particular case an inquiry specifically into the transactions-because it was, indeed, a Crown corporation-was instituted and a report in relation to that matter will be available as soon as it can be made public.

November 20, 1975
Confidence in Government
I have said, Mr. Speaker, that generally speaking the hon. member for Central Nova shows a high degree of responsibility. I note some instances where that sense of responsibility seems to have failed him in the pursuit of these particular matters. I wonder, for instance, what led him to introduce the other day in the House of Commons- on November 13, I believe-in a question relating to the production of papers, the reference to a supposed sugar transaction in the Barbados by an official associated at that time with Air Canada. The matter itself had in fact been investigated to the extent thought desirable by the Estey commission. There is no suggestion, in the reference, of any responsibility even by the management of Air Canada, let alone by the government, yet it was introduced in this spurious way.
I saw another reference to political donations having been made by a company involved in bidding on contracts. It turned out, of course, that the donation referred to was by an unsuccessful bidder, yet it was all wrapped up in terms of some kind of innuendo and allegation without anything being carried through. I think that is unfortunate. This is, of course, the very kind of question that can be raised and that this government has helped to put behind all of us involved in the political process with the introduction of new election expenses legislation and a totally new approach thereto so there can be no grounds for that kind of suspicion.
There is, again, an allegation in relation to gifts to certain employees of the government. Again the law is clear, and the appropriate approach in cases of any such indication or allegation is an investigation. Certain similar instances came to the attention of the government some years ago in relation to certain employees of the government. An immediate investigation was launched and as the investigation proceeded, the evidence, as is our practice, was turned over to the appropriate provincial attorney general for appropriate action.
The law is clear in the Criminal Code that gifts are not to be accepted by civil servants, from anyone, without the express, written consent of the head of the department. That is clear, it is strict, and it is a rule that has needed to be re-emphasized throughout the civil service. As a result of that particular series of incidents in 1972-73 a new set of directives was issued reminding civil servants of the strictness of that ruling, and reminding deputy heads of departments of the need to comment upon it in any way they felt necessary or desirable for the guidance of civil servants. This is another case where, therefore, the whole of the case is made to mesh with other things without quite being clear.
I do not know why the hon. member for Central Nova, in this motion, went into the question of whether or not the PTV vehicles were working superbly at Mirabel airport. This strikes me as another red herring. The information I have is that they are being competently operated. He referred, with amusement, to the one which did not operate at the time of the opening of Mirabel and suggested some mechanical incompetence. I am told that in fact a fuse blew on that occasion. It may be worthy of a small investigation, but hardly the linking of that with other matters as the hon. member has done.
Perhaps worst of all today was the linking by the hon. member of allegations and discussions he has been putting before the House with respect to not only a hearsay statement but a hearsay statement reporting a hearsay statement which he attributed, after I requested the name, to the first individual who reported the hearsay to him. That is the kind of statement which surely deserves, if anything, police investigation. If it has the kind of relevance that deserves an investigation, it is the kind of thing that should be followed up in that way. Anything that can be stated by that person, or a source that can be found through that person, can be followed up by the police without these matters being put in an innuendo way, without any proof or follow-up, before the House and by persons who may, as in the case of several of the persons to whom the hon. member referred, have some reason for bitterness about not having been successful in a tender process.
The hon. member referred to the particular case of a Mr. Kohli. If it is true-and I will check that fact also, since so many of these thing turn out not to be true upon examination-that Mr. Kohli never had explained to him why he did not receive consideration of his tender, then it may be that there was some impoliteness and our procedures, in order to be perfectly polite, should be improved.
But it is clear that Mr. Kohli's tender did not in fact qualify within the grounds of tendering. The square footage to which he was referring in his tender was totally different from the square footage that was available and involved in the request for tender. It was for that reason his bid was not considered among, I think, the seven or eight which were left for consideration.
The way in which a particular bidding situation goes on is perhaps always complex. When the hon. member for Central Nova referred to the extension of the Dorval contract for the first time in this House, when the contract was extended to Sky Shops for an additional five-year period several years before its time ran out, it appeared to everyone to be a peculiar circumstance. Upon investigation it was discovered that the reason was the need for some construction to make the operation a reasonable one. Construction would take a certain period to be depreciated. The operation was one that existed in the Dorval airport in respect of a duty-free shop, a shop which would be less than significant once international traffic was transferred away from Dorval, and the plan was to transfer it from about 1974-75 to Mirabel from Dorval.
With that explanation, the mystery vanished and the situation was in fact a clear one from the point of view of the conduct of the department and the people involved in this transaction. It turned out that in that particular contract the renegotiation involved the raising of the rent which had to be paid by the lessee, even for the remaining three years or so, on a lease where from its inception he had a much lower rate of percentage to pay in relation to his gross revenue.
The case of the Mirabel contract has been raised. Here again, as I have said to hon. members, I will be very glad to discuss the question in detail, particularly in the forum which I believe is most appropriate, a committee of this House where cross-examination can take place and where witnesses can be present and examined. I do not under-
|Mr. Lang.]
November 20, 1975

stand hon. members not wanting that kind of forum, when obviously they want to cross-examine. They appear only too eager to make some comments, although it is a little difficult to hear even what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is muttering at this particular point in time with regard to this issue.
Before a committee of the House I will be very glad indeed to look at the particular contract and the granting of the concession at Mirabel. As was said before in the House, it was a situation where an analysis of the tenders showed there were different levels of tenders and different levels of the likely rate of return on the basis of the percentages which were offered by way of rent for the service. A couple of issues which are pretty important were involved in that particular granting of tender. One of them was referred to by the hon. member for Central Nova when he said that it has been the practice, in the granting of duty-free shop concessions in relation to liquor, to pay attention to the licensing authority in the province in which the international airport is in fact located.
I think that particular consideration does deserve reexamination. I have asked that we re-examine the question of whether or not the tendering procedure should be related in any way to the licensing provisions of the provincial liquor licensing authority. Hon. members will appreciate how it may have come about that the provincial authority generally in charge of licensing for the sale of liquor was given the consideration of being the licensing authority as well at international airports. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Central Nova, that constitutionally that is not required; but having in mind federal-provincial relations, it was an understandable development.
It is in that way, for instance, that at the Toronto airport the duty-free shop for liquor is actually operated by the Ontario Liquor Board and there, as I understand it, this was done without tender and through negotiation because of the specific desire on the part of that liquor board not to have anyone but itself involved in that sale. I think that matter does deserve review because it had an impact upon the tendering process in the Mirabel case. It led, indeed, to a conclusion that one particular bidder, largely a foreign-owned bidder, should not be considered as one of the contenders for the contract because of the policy of that particular provincial liquor board which required a higher degree of Canadian ownership than that for a successful bid.
I am not trying to forecast how we, as a federal government, would or should have concluded that particular matter, or what conclusion we should have arrived at concerning whether or not a foreign bidder should have been acceptable. But I do say that in that particular case it was a consequence of relying upon the approach of the provincial liquor licensing authority that led us not to seriously consider that particular bid along with the others which were evaluated and re-evaluated with a good deal of care by a committee of officials before one bid was selected.
Mr. Speaker, in short, I say to hon. members that we have attempted at every point we can to pursue investigations into any matters which are brought to our attention about problems, whether they indeed be picayune, or a particular vehicle not operating up to complete standards.
Adjournment Motion
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that earlier hon. members were having some fun over whether or not the runways were properly built. Investigation confirmed to me that they are in fact of a very good standard indeed. That kind of red herring is pursued by us as we try to cater to the particular whims of members opposite regarding what should be investigated.
When it comes to more serious matters, matters of alleged impropriety, then I think that not only must we act with dispatch but it is important that hon. members opposite, as any citizen in this country, co-operate by bringing to the attention of the authorities all the information they may have that bears on the question, and bring it forward as quickly as possible. Then, when investigations are appropriate, this government will ensure that they are carried out with dispatch. In the ordinary course we will rely on the procedures of investigation by law enforcement officers, and if criminal matters are involved we rely upon the decision of officers of the Crown, attorneys general in this country, as to the steps that should be taken with regard to that matter.
We will not want, ordinarily, to share with hon. members or in any way to approve what hon. members may do if, by using this House as a forum and a protection or in any other way, persons are smeared by innuendo or involved in a trial of reputation without a proper investigation. That is not according to the traditions of this country and of our system of law, and I urge all hon. members to co-operate with us in ensuring that the proper steps will be taken and that proper investigations will be carried out. On behalf of this government, I can assure hon. members that whenever matters are brought to our attention the appropriate investigation and action will be taken, and we will always be glad to lay that action record before hon. members and before the public and to stand on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker)- Transport- Freight rates-Disparity between rate on fresh fruit from Okanagan to eastern Canada and rate from state of Washington; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-External Affairs-St. Pierre-Miqu-elon-Discussions with France on determination of offshore resource rights; the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)- Transport-Government intentions with regard to use of Canadian ships to move oil from Arctic.

November 20, 1975
Confidence in Government



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacKay:
That this House, noting the public is concerned about recent disclosures of improprieties in the conduct of public affairs, as evidenced by events resulting in criminal prosecutions with respect to government dredging contracts, the Estey Air Canada inquiry, and disturbing reports about government leasing concessions of airport duty-free shops, urges the government to take immediate action to restore public confidence in the government's efforts to control conflict of interest and other improprieties of public officials, most especially with regard to government contracts and leasing procedures and practices.
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I heard the sanctimonious utterances of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) a few moments ago and I am sure there was not a dry eye in the House. It reminded me very much of the statements that were made in another capital city not too long ago by the president of that country who spoke with equal sanctimoniousness about those things which he said did not exist.
The minister has had to leave the House to go to an appointment, and I understand that; but I want to ask him, through you, Mr. Speaker, about a couple of the statements he made. He indicated that the government moved with great speed in the case involving Air Canada. They appointed a very reputable high court judge in Ontario to investigate that case. I want to ask him what is the difference between that case and this case, in terms of the obligations that are before the public. What caused the government to move so quickly in that case, and what has caused them not to move so quickly in the Sky Shops matter? What is the difference? I suggest there may well be a significant difference, the difference being that somewhere in the net is caught one of their own.
When the Minister of Transport talks about the equal hand which he will apply to each case, I say to him that he is talking as if he were Otto in Wonderland, because that is not the case at all. There is perhaps a difference between the Air Canada case investigated by Judge Estey, a good investigator appointed with such speed, and the case involving Mirabel with which the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) has been dealing. In the Mirabel case, the police saw fit to raid the office of a senator in this building and they saw fit to raid his home. That is a considerable difference and it adds another element in this case.
I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker-and let there be no doubt about it-that if there was justification in the case investigated by Air Canada through Mr. Justice Estey, then this case involving a member of the Senate cries out for investigation and for action. There are differences, and let us not fool ourselves in this place that a defence can be made to a legitimate request by a member who is generally regarded as having performed a heroic act in bringing forward this case with such restraint. Let us not be fooled that any defence can be made by attacking the integrity of the hon. member for Central Nova.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)).]
The minister spoke of civil liberties a few moments ago, and of the right to protect them. I agree with him; there is not a member of the House who would disagree with him. But one of the liberties of a free citizen in a free society, in a parliamentary system, is the right to the truth. I am saying to you, sir, and to anyone who would defend the stonewalling that has gone on in the House in the question period, and lately by the Minister of Transport, that it is denying not only to the House but to the people of Canada the right to the truth. It is about time we stopped doing that and realized that the House is not a place where before a member can stand up he must prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Parliament of Canada is not a court of law and it is not a public inquiry, but when a member of parliament brings forward information such as the information that the hon. member for Central Nova has brought forth, then the government has a duty to act, not to evade or avoid because one of their own may be caught in the net. They have a duty to give more than the lip service just given by the Minister of Transport on the guidelines of conflict of interest. The papers on the guidelines on conflict of interest have been stuck in a committee for over a year.


Mr. Blais:: That is not so.


Walter David Baker: If I am wrong, please correct me. That delay almost provides the grease for the skids to make respectable the avoidance of responsibility which the hon. member for Central Nova has asked this government to take, and which they have refused to take thus far. From what the Minister of Transport said today, they will probably continue to refuse. Let there be no doubt about it, they do a disservice to themselves, to this parliament, and to the whole idea of public trust in public life. Let us make no bones about it, and let us call it what it is. It is important, because it is the very foundation stone of parliamentary government, that it be operated by reasonable men of integrity, that everyone act reasonably, and when situations cry out for investigation that they be investigated. It is an important relationship.
On December 10, 1974, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) put this relationship forth very succinctly. He said the following:
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.
The confidence of the public has not been encouraged, and firm action and proper priorities have not been forthcoming with respect to some of the matters in this motion. The Giguere question, the findings of the Estey report, and the SIU situation all point to examples of the way the Liberal government has allowed public confidence to be undermined.
This parliament has dealt with conflict of interest guidelines to a limited extent. The conflict of interest guidelines have been set forth as follows:
November 20, 1975

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.
The proof of conflict of interest in this particular instance rests on the monetary or material gains influencing public or political decision making. The case of Senator Giguere brings into question not only the impropriety of a member of the Canadian parliament, but also the inability or ability of representatives to distinguish, at least in some instances, between the public and private interest.
Again the government has offered no leadership. For a Canadian Senator to accept stock transfers at almost an honorific price from a company whose contract is exclusively contingent upon government decisions not only raises the question of conflict of interest, but also casts in doubt the ability of a member to discern what is a conflict of interest. There cannot be any denial of that, even though many of us would like to say that we could deny it. In short, even if the minister is not culpable, and even if he did not know there were huge monetary gains to be made from such a stock transfer, the situation should never have been allowed to happen. In that it did happen, and in that the government's own guidelines do not make it clear what is a conflict of interest, the government itself becomes culpable of undermining the public trust, of which I spoke, and to which the minister gave lip service just a few moments ago.
It has been admitted by the government that the provisions which have operated heretofore are both outdated and woefully lacking in meeting with public expectations of governmental integrity. At present members of parliament are prohibited from accepting fees relating to any matter before the House, from entering into contracts with the government, from holding shares in a company which wins a public works contract, and from voting on a matter in which they have direct pecuniary interest. There is no mention of stock which the family of a member of parliament may hold. At present there are no official regulations requiring disclosure of interests.
Perhaps this government has not been the best, but another prime minister dealt with the situation. In 1964 the late Prime Minister Pearson attempted to set down a code of ethics for his ministers and their departments to follow.


An hon. Member:: After a whole bunch of scandals.


Walter David Baker: After significant
trouble, as a matter of fact. I will quote from a letter he wrote to his cabinet colleagues as follows:
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. The conduct of public business must be beyond question in terms of moral standards, objectivity and equality of treatment.
How does that stand in the face of what we know and in the face of what has been disclosed by the hon. member for Central Nova? How do we justify the fact that this paper on conflict of interest guidelines is still stuck in the morass of our committee system? In the case of Senator Giguere it is well known that he is intricately involved in Kebec Restaurants and AFC Limited. These two organizations
Confidence in Government
are inextricably bound up in the transportation industry and with government tenders.
When asked if Senator Giguere was violating the present guidelines on conflict of interest, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on November 5 replied, and I quote:
-it is not apparent to me that there has been conflict of interest.


An hon. Member:: How would he know?


Walter David Baker: I ask the question, how would he know? This stance, and the statement of the Prime Minister are indicative of the weakness and inadequacy of current government proposals and of the nonchalant fashion of the government in handling this issue.
With regard to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), he said he was looking after the interests of his constituents. He claims that when he was acting as principal secretary to the Prime Minister he handled the Sky Shops request in a manner similar to that in which he would have handled any constituent's request.
If the government House leader or the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) will not remind him, the minister should be reminded of the position of Lester Pearson and the Liberal government on this matter. I quote again from the letter of the former prime minister:
In order that honesty and impartiality may be beyond doubt, members of Ministers' staffs, equally with ministers, must not place themselves in a position where they are under obligation to any person who might profit from special consideration or favour on their part, or seek in any way to gain special treatment from them.
In turn, if the Prime Minister claims that he gave his secretary the go-ahead-and apparently that is what he did claim-I should like to remind the House of what the late Prime Minister Pearson said about that kind of activity. He said the following:
It is perfectly proper-indeed it is desirable-for members of ministers' staffs to be responsive to complaints as to delays in procedures or unfairness of treatment. They should bring these to the attention of the minister, or to that of the proper officials in a department. But in no case must a member of a minister's staff-or any other public servant- seek to gain for a particular person treatment that would not be accorded to any citizen .. . There can be no special treatment on the ground of personal acquaintance, sympathy or anything of that kind. Least of all must there be any suspicion of special treatment when there is cause to believe that a violation or evasion of law may be in issue.
What I am saying is that there is sufficient evidence in this case to ask to what extent there was involvement, and to demand an answer with respect to this matter, having regard to the involvement of the particular member of the other place with the matter in question.
We have demanded action on conflict of interest matters. This is the second time this party has allotted an opposition day to this subject. Other parties have also shown concern. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has a bill on the books respecting the disclosure of financial interests by senators, members of the House of Commons, and certain other persons. I hope it does not die a slow death, or I hope its death is much quicker than the breathing into life a public inquiry on this matter has proven to be.
Confidence in Government

November 20, 1975
I challenge the government to undertake its obligations for the sake of this institution, the members in it, and every public person whose name has become involved-for the sake of the other place and its integrity. I say do not attack the hon. member for Central Nova as your defence. Do not rely on the sophistry of that kind of defence. I ask you to take your courage in your hands and, for the sake of those other things I have mentioned, bring on a public inquiry before a judge. We would be satisfied with Chief Justice Estey or any other reasonable judge. Do not tell us that disclosure to a parliamentary committee under our rules means anything but a continuation of the kind of stonewalling that has gone on here in another form.
Is there any member of parliament who will say he is opposed to a public inquiry? Is there any member of parliament who knows something about the case that we do not know that would make him opposed to a public inquiry? If anything is wrong, open the books; if anything is wrong, investigate; if anything is wrong, find out. Do not sit on your hands and attack a member of parliament for bringing forward something which it was his duty to bring forward. That, however, is the whole of the case of the government, Your Honour.


Mr. Rod Blaker (Lachine-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention in participating in this discussion to try to limit my comments to the function I serve as chairman of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and, pursuant to the motion of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), to take up some parts of the subject of conflict of interest. The hon. member has since left the chamber.
Before I go into any detail in this regard I should like to bring to the attention of the last speaker, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), that he may have some concept of the conflict of interest legislation in the Canadian House of Commons that is significantly different from my own, and possibly different from that of a number of other individuals.
First of all, to correct the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, the conflict of interest legislation has not been stuck in any committee for a year. It was referred to committee on December 10, 1974; there were 21 meetings at which, as the hon. member should know, a considerable amount of effort was put in by all members, and the committee's report was tabled in the House on June 10, 1975.
The second correction I should like to make to the hon. member's remarks is that the conflict of interest guidelines are not government guidelines any longer; they are recommendations of an all-party committee which unanimously supported them together with the amendments and the deletions which we proposed.
The third correction is that unfortunately the hon. member is of the opinion there is no legislation which proscribes the holding of stock in certain companies by individuals related to members of parliament, whether of the House of Commons or the Senate. I can assure him that there is indeed such legislation, and the conflict of interest guidelines proposal No. 11 specifies these matters at great length.


Walter David Baker: You make my case stronger.


Roderick Blaker: I agree with the interjection of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. He has been trying to make his case stronger. If he deems it suitable to refer to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) as "Otto in Wonderland" he will not object to being referred to as "Wallie in Wonderland".
I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that I wanted to restrict my comments to the area of conflict of interest because of the work of the committee, and hopefully to make such comments a contribution to the discussion whether for the benefit of interested members generally or for the public.
My initial comment would be that, give or take the varying comments made on either side of the House, including those of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton to the effect that this side is attacking the hon. member for Central Nova, I should like to suggest the opposite.
I happen to represent the riding in which is found the city of Dorval. If the hon. member for Central Nova were here he would confirm that we have had some discussion on a shared interest in this problem. Hopefully these discussions will result in a solution.
The motion reads in part:
-urges the government to take immediate action to restore public confidence in the government's efforts to control conflict of interest and other improprieties of public officials, most especially with regard to government contract and leasing procedures and practices.
I would just say that members who are interested in pursuing the subject will find that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections did go into that topic in considerable detail. The recommendations go substantially beyond those laid out in the original green paper on conflict of interest.
I should like to assure all hon. members and the public that some of the most stringent regulations to be found in any western democracy are in the Canadian conflict of interest legislation. It is my understanding that the legislation in the form of amendments to existing laws, as well as new legislation, will be ready some time next spring.
That brings me to a problem which has been referred to by the Minister of Transport and in relation to which any discussion of conflict of interest deserves at least a momentary review.
One of the remarkable problems we face in the House of Commons and in the news media is the apparent capacity, whether it be by members or the news media, to level accusations without fear of having the same burden of proof or responsibility placed upon the accuser as is placed upon the individual who is accused.
I make no suggestion that such is the case in the remarks made earlier today by the hon. member for Central Nova. I do point out, however, that we face a significant problem if we permit the general principles of justice, which have guided our courts over centuries, to be abandoned in favour of changing the forum or arena either to members acting by themselves or as members of the House of Commons, or to trial by the news media. In both cases the accused has no opportunity for a reasonable, fair hearing. I do not know of any way we can limit this right on the part
November 20, 1975

of members, but I do not think anyone would want to limit them in raising matters such as the Dorval and Sky Shops affairs.
I would remind the House that a free press and free news media have meant publications like the National Inquirer, and others which most of us would agree are less than tasteful, and which do not accept some of the responsibilities that go with a free press. We support a free press on the grounds that it is the best way to get the best possible contribution from an independent press.
In the same way, I think we have to support the concept of the investigations carried out by the hon. member for Central Nova, but always with the understanding that it is a privilege given to us to accuse without danger of retribution. If we abuse such a privilege, then we will be guilty of something called muck raking.
Other than that, I want to assure hon. members that other areas were covered in the matter of conflict of interest. According, in my view the government's action to date meets the demand of the motion which asks the government to take certain action.
We have spent considerable time studying conflicts of interest. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said so well in the question period one day, political practices acceptable ten or 20 years ago are no longer acceptable. The difficulty with drawing guidelines to cover conflicts of interest is that our views on conflict of interest are constantly changing. It is difficult for members of the House at large, those serving on the committee on Privileges and Elections, the media, or the public to agree at any one time on what constitutes improper behaviour, or what proper behaviour ought to constitute.
I note that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) suggested to the Procedure and Organization Committee this morning the establishment of some procedure in this House to provide for quick impeachment of members. Possibly that is one technique the House ought to consider.
Amendments to be brought forward, either in the form of amending bills or new laws, will prohibit the holding of dual electoral offices, prohibit the members' or senators' participation in any contract made with any government in Canada, prohibit the participation by members of parliament and senators in the management of any company which has entered into a contract with a government, require members of parliament to declare their interest in any subject matter under debate, and prohibit members from voting on a bill with respect to which they have an interest. I underline and stress strongly, for the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton who has alluded to this subject, that, without question, the regulations will pertain to the families of members of parliament and of senators.
In order to assure the population that members of this House are determined to be guided by such regulations and laws, we have suggested guidelines which will recommend that any citizen of Canada may go to the Federal Court and ask the court to examine any particular issue which relates to the behaviour, or participation in any contract, of a member of parliament or senator. The law will require the attorney general of the province to proceed with the
Confidence in Government
case, on its merits, on behalf of the citizen; should the attorney general refuse, the court will be obligated under the new law, to report the action to the Speaker of the House of Commons or to the Speaker of the Senate.
As I was surprised about comments made on the government's stand on conflict of interest, I shall read to hon. members a number of suggested provisions contained in the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The part I shall read is headed "Financial Interests". It says, as recorded on page 24:5 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections:
It is recommended that the proposals entitled: 'Financial Interests' be expanded to the 'Office of Registrar', whose existence is intended to assure the public of the determination of members of parliament to avoid potential or actual conflicts of interest.
Here let me correct a misapprehension raised by the hon. member for Central Nova concerning regulations and restrictions which ought to apply to members of the House and senators. The hon. member suggested that the guidelines applying to ministers will not be more strict than those applying to members. His information is not correct. The guidelines for ministers will be more strict than those with respect to members. I continue quoting:
Your committee agrees with the statement in the green paper that 'Members may increasingly find themselves in situations for which no adequate rules or guidelines exist to aid them in ensuring that their conduct respects their fiduciary duty'.
Accordingly, your committee envisages the function of the registrar as being:
(a)	The registration of an annual statement of the pecuniary interests of each member of parliament, and the making and filing of records pertaining thereto;
(b)	The provision of confidential advice to members of parliament, at their request, on any matter that may concern a possible conflict of interest of the member.
(c)	The annual reporting to the House of Commons of a list of those members of parliament who have complied with the requirements of the law relating to registration and/or disclosure.
To assure the public that members of parliament will indeed take the steps necessary to avoid conflicts of interest, your committee recommends that the draft legislation and where necessary the standing orders be so amended as to reflect the following proposal:
Every member of parliament shall, within six months of assuming office and on May 31st of each year thereafter, file with the registrar, the following information, together with such additional information as the registrar may require:
(1)	his or her taxation returns for the year current or preceding;
(2)	his or her financial and pecuniary interests, direct or indirect, of every kind and nature whatsoever, including such interests of the member through his or her spouse and/or dependent children, as well as trusts of which he or she or his or her spouse and/or dependent children are the trustees or beneficiaries.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that members will be hard put to find tougher conflict of interest legislation anywhere in the world.
We shall appoint a registrar. Members will be obliged to deposit with him their taxation returns, together with details of their own financial assets and, in addition, those applying to their spouses, children, trustees and beneficiaries. Therefore on the face of it the government will more than meet the requirement referred to in this motion. It will introduce good conflict of interest legislation. True, there are loopholes, and I will not take the time of the House explaining the details. Amendments will be made to

November 20, 1975
Confidence in Government
the Election Expenses Act and conflict of interest guidelines.
I remind the hon. members that the report was unanimous and participated in by members of all parties. In the view of the committee and some observers, it constitutes an outstanding guideline for members and ministers who may find it necessary to avail themselves of the services of the registrar in order to pattern their behaviour in a manner acceptable to their colleagues in the House and to the public as well. Therefore I may disagree with the hon. member for Central Nova about a certain portion of his motion, as I insist that the government will propose an exceptionally good set of guidelines.
Speaking as a member whose riding is involved in one of the topics discussed, I appreciate the hard work of the hon. member for Central Nova and recognize his contribution to the betterment of parliament.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I once knew a Liberal member of parliament whose name I will not mention, he no longer being with us, who, while a potential shareholder or subscriber to a company he sought to have incorporated by act of parliament-the company was subsequently incorporated and he became a shareholder- sat in this House, voted on that company's incorporation, and sat in committee and did the same, because he was privy to information showing that the company was to be awarded a substantial government contract from which he stood to gain much advantage. There is no difference between that situation and the one here, and I think members will agree that it was really wrong for that member of parliament to be so involved.
What really disturbs me is people like the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) rising and complimenting the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) on the integrity with which he spoke and presented his case, while at the same time undercutting him. The hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker) did this too, in a very nice way. I was waiting to hear, for the first time, the allegation of muck raking raised in this debate. And, indeed, it was raised. That is another problem encountered by the opposition when we raise something like this. We encounter scorn, skepticism, and scoffing from members on the government side because those members do not want anything embarrassing to be raised, anything which might muddy the waters.
Our responsibility on this side is very clear, as I see it, and I have had some small experience in raising matters such as this in the past. The event of late 1963 led, in my view, to the publication of the letter of the then prime minister on November 30, 1964, to all his cabinet colleagues, portions of which have been quoted by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Yet the caution we have received from the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Lachine was, in effect: do not take advantage of this privilege which members of parliament are granted to raise matters with immunity in the House knowing we can do so without fear of retribution-I shall have something to say about that in a moment-and because the accused, or whoever is being spoken of in whatever fashion, is not here to defend himself or herself, as the case may be.

There are not many members left in the House, certainly on the other side, who were around in 1963 when these matters were raised and followed up throughout the next year. It may have been a coincidence, but with respect to this possibility of retribution, and opinions which members may express about other members raising matters such as this without proof positive, the belief among members opposite that we over here might, perhaps, raise matters such as this without fear of retribution is quite false.
By way of illustrating this proposition I might say that prior to the event of 1963 in which I was involved, I had occasion to discuss with the then minister of justice a certain case involving two employees of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. After certain matters were raised in the House, matters which were very embarrassing to the government and which caused resignations and, indeed, prosecutions-one person, at any rate, was found guilty of offending against the provisions of the Criminal Code-the full weight of the Government of Canada descended upon those unfortunate employees of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. They were both fired and prosecuted in the courts.
In the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court judge made the remark at that time, with respect to the prosecution of these individuals, that had he himself been in their position he would have done the same thing. But that did not satisfy "the Crown"-I put the word in quotation marks. They pursued the matter through the Court of Appeal on the basis that the judge had applied wrong principles, and were successful in getting a substantial fine imposed on those two civil servants.
What was their crime? Their crime was taking money from one vote intended to be applied for welfare for the Indian people and using it to build houses for Indian people under another vote. That was their crime against the Financial Administration Act. It is true this was not retribution against the individual member of parliament, but it certainly smacks of serious retribution to my mind. I do not have to say more with regard to the caution to be exercised by members on this side in terms of what they might take to be retribution. The wrath of the government did not stop with those two civil servants at that time.
Some 12 years having passed I can speak of these matters now dispassionately. I might say I have not spoken of them to other members of the House in the detail I have now disclosed. However, coincidentally, one might say-I, for one, do not believe it-a short two and a half months after the government had suffered serious embarrassment at my hands involving the resignation of ministers, parliamentary secretaries, and what have you, the full weight of the Department of National Revenue descended upon my shoulders.
Notwithstanding the fact that certain transactions in my business had been fully disclosed to the Director of Taxation in my district, and his approval obtained for these transactions, a re-assessment was made by officials in the Department of National Revenue, coincidentally only two and a half months after the serious embarrassment suffered by the government. The amount involved was the substantial sum of approximately $25,000. The re-assessment was appealed by me and, in substance, the case was won by me before the Tax Appeal Board. But they were not
November 20, 1975

happy to stop there. They meant to nail my hide to the mast, so they tried again, this time not for a mere $25,000; they upped the ante by some $29,000 a few months later.
I wrote to the minister of national revenue at that time suggesting that what was happening was pure harassment because I, as a member of the official opposition, had had the temerity to raise certain matters in 1963, and I stated that unless the harassment ceased I would make the affair public and raise it as a matter of privilege in the House. The minister, I suppose, gave certain directions because the Department of National Revenue called off their dogs and the re-assessment was withdrawn.
That is an illustration of the extent to which the wrath of government can fall on the shoulders of members of the opposition if they have the rashness to raise certain matters in the House. The suggestion of muck-raking or smearing reputations is a very poor device, especially coming from members opposite who may one day-I say just "may"-find themselves on this side of the House, faced with the same kind of duty and responsibility as was so ably carried out today by my hon. friend from Central Nova.
Instead of engaging in the kind of platitudes voiced by the minister today I suggest he could more usefully have used his time by answering the questions which are oustanding on this matter. He suggests there are logical explanations for the granting of the extension of this lease to Sky Shops. A contract which still had four years to run acquired suddenly a five-year extension after it had been in existence for only a year. He told us the reason for this was the need for reconstruction work-there was a space problem and that a rate was to be renegotiated. That strikes me as being very strange, coming from a minister who should know better.
I recall a debate that we had a few years ago on the Prairie Grain Stabilization Act, or some such legislation, where $100 million was being illegally held back from the farmers of this country. A statute specifically spelt out a mandatory responsibility on the minister through whom the Wheat Board reported to distribute those funds as head of the Wheat Board. The minister stood up, this ex-dean of one of the law schools of this country, and tried to convince us that the word "shall" as used in the statute meant that he had some kind of discretion. I could not believe my ears then, and I cannot believe my ears today when the minister says that he believes this is the real reason.
The minister says that members have a responsibility to place before the government all the necessary evidence and information upon which the government can act. That is what I did in 1963, before the matter was raised in the House of Commons, during a discussion of the estimates of the Department of Justice. But nothing was done. Indeed, upon being questioned the government was given the opportunity by the now hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), and I to tell members of the House what the government was going to do about the situation that was then raised. But the government ducked. It pulled the covers over its head, and it was only then that we exposed the whole material.
Confidence in Government
What more does the minister expect from the hon. member for Central Nova, who has provided the minister with documents until they come out of his ears? The minister could not even find certain important information, namely, the liquor contract with the Quebec Liquor Board, so my hon. friend from Central Nova supplied it to him. All the time the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) had a copy of that document in his possession, supplied to him by Mr. Lapointe, one of the principals involved in this what I think is a very sorry and sad mess. How much more disclosure does the minister expect before some action is taken?
Investigations by the RCMP are fine as far as they go, but investigations were undertaken in 1963 by the RCMP. The RCMP followed the course suggested by the Minister of Transport and placed information before the law officers of the Crown, who gave an opinion. The then minister of justice rose in his place and said that their advice was that no criminal offences had been committed; in other words, whitewash it; suppress it if is embarrassing. Subsequently a very distinguished jurist from the province of Quebec differed with the then minister of justice and did in fact find that criminal offences had been committed. I refer to a royal commission specially set up by the government because it was unable to resist the pressure any longer.
The same situation obtains here. The circumstances are such that the matter cries out for a public inquiry. You cannot hide behind the subterfuge of a police investigation carried out by responsible and able police officers, because the truth may not surface if it is politically embarrassing. That is a political fact of life, one of which I have had first-hand experience. It has happened before. If a highly placed official or a government is going to be embarrassed by police investigations, then the police investigation will not see the light of day. This is why the situation cries out for a public inquiry.
I can tell hon. members opposite what the police investigation is going to find. It is going to catch the poor little employee in the Department of Transport who accepted as a gift a pen and pencil set while some guy who makes $95,000 in a few weeks is allowed to get away with a serious conflict of interest. That is not what I understood a very highly respected prime minister of this country to have spelt out in letters to his cabinet colleagues on November 30, 1964. What I understood that prime minister to say was that this kind of conduct was reprehensible and wrong, and that it would not be tolerated by the government.
All we have heard today from the Minister of Transport is excuses. What have we heard from the Senator himself? According to the Globe and Mail for Saturday, November 8, 1975 he said:
What is wrong with having a senator do a little business now and then? Do Canadians expect senators to be drawn from the ranks of the Salvation Army or something?
That is his attitude.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Might be a lot better if they were.


Erik Nielsen: I think so. I am one who is on all fours, if I may express a personal view here, with the efforts of the

November 20, 1975
Confidence in Government
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to have the Senate abolished. Conduct like this certainly does not generate any support in the minds of the Canadian public for the idea that the Senate is a useful body performing a useful task on behalf of the Government of Canada.


Mr. Paproski:: It is a retirement fund.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, a nice retirement fund. What I really find reprehensible about this whole matter is this kind of reaction by the Senator, coming at a time when the government is asking everyone to tighten their belts to fight inflation. The government wants everyone to abide by limited wage rises and wants all small businesses to abide by limited price increases under rigid control, while at the same time, because a Senator has friends in high places, he is able to make $95,000 within a few weeks. One can forgive the average Canadian Joe for wondering what part of this $95,000 was retained by the Senator, who has been referred to as one of the chief bagmen of the Liberal party and-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielson) because I was not here in 1963. I listened to his recapitulation of past history with a great deal of interest, and although the information I have obtained is second hand it does not match his information in all particulars, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker.
I wish I had also received from the hon. member some additional information relating to the motion under discussion. We have heard additional arguments very ably presented, but there was not a tittle, as they say, of additional information presented by the hon. member for Yukon. No additional information was bestowed upon the House upon which the arguments that he mounted were based.
I searched with a great deal of attention for any indication of a rebuttal of the explanation offered by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), but I could find none. There was a different interpretation, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Would you like one?


Jean-Jacques Blais: There was an explanation given by the Minister of Transport of all the allegations presented by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. Mackay). He offered an explanation which I would suggest is acceptable to this House and founded on the truth.
Evidently my friend was not satisfied with the explanations given, and that is his right, but I take strong exception to his attempting to reinforce his arguments, not by new evidence or facts, but by dragging all the facts which were brought out back in 1963, smearing the whole picture with additional innuendoes of 1963 origin. That is not a fair

method of proceeding with an argument. There has been a great attempt to smear the government by alleging that in fact we were accusing the hon. member for Central Nova of muck-raking. That is not a term anyone on this side of the House employed until the hon. member for Yukon used it.


Erik Nielsen: That is not correct. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The record will show that the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker) used the expression before I did, and had he not done so I would not have mentioned it myself.


Jean-Jacques Blais: There was no implication that the term was to be applied to the actions of the hon. member for Central Nova, and there was no indication that the hon. member for Central Nova was doing anything but his duty. There was an indication by the minister that perhaps sometimes he was a bit over-anxious, and that some of the procedures being followed were those he ought not to have followed, but there was no such indication or accusation. Let me suggest to the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that the suggestion that there are accusations in respect of the hon. member for Central Nova is completely incorrect.
This government and this parliament stand on their records, and I include this parliament in having sought to achieve greater security of our own reputation by enacting and passing guidelines on conflict of interest. There are also attempts, which other members will deal with, to increase access to information so as to make our roles more meaningful. No one can suggest that the government is sandbagging or stonewalling in any material fashion or, indeed, at all.
The hon. member for Yukon has had his experiences, and I am sure he locks them deep within himself. He is aware of the facts as he sees them. I am not able to contradict him because I was not here at the time. All I know is that today the facts are not as he alleges, nor are they as alleged by the hon. member for Central Nova.
An explanation has been offered by the Minister of Transport in direct response to the two main allegations upon which this motion is founded. The first was that in fact there was an absence of an investigation in respect of the Sky Shops matter, and the minister indicated that in fact an investigation was proceeding even before the hon. member made any accusation. The second point on which this motion seems to be based, because it is the only other matter that has been advanced, is that a statement was made by some unknown person to some other party who is not willing to lend any credence to the statement by declaring his intention to make it public.
That statement is double hearsay and the minister rightfully said that it ought not to be accepted. The hon. member for Central Nova indicated that the statement could be true or might not be true, but he was not in a position to support it. The minister indicated that this was a proper and responsible allegation that should be investigated, and that it is presently being investigated.
The other matter which gives me concern is the complete balderdash that we received from the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. For a deputy House leader not to have known that on a matter as important as conflict of interest
!;*
AV;

November 20, 1975

the Committee on Privileges and Elections had submitted its report to this House, and for him not to have done the proper research to find that out makes one wonder what sort of research went into the preparation of his speech.
When dealing with innuendo and allegation, the hon. member for Central Nova falls in the face of the blunderbuss from Grenville-Carleton. That hon. member was in the House when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) replied to the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) in relation to alleged instructions to his personal secretary on the way he was to conduct his dealings with Sky Shops. He was here and he heard the Prime Minister reply. For the record the question begins at page 9103 of Hansard. The question and answer are as follows:


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to address to the right hon. Prime Minister. When in April of 1970 the Prime Minister gave permission to his then principal secretary personally to intervene in a matter involving large sums of money between Sky Shops Export Limited and the federal Department of Transport, what were the instructions that he gave to his then principal secretary?
right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, 1 am not sure upon what the hon. member is basing his assertion that I personally gave instructions. My principal secretary was, in a general way, instructed to deal with constituents-by that, I mean not only people from my riding of Mount Royal but constituents across the country- who had some reason to want to see me. I could not make myself accessible personally to everyone, but he had instructions to try to deal with every reasonable request by any citizen of Canada, particularly if they came from the beautiful riding of Mount Royal-
At that point I recall there was a chuckle from the opposition. The answer continues as follows:
-and to make sure they had access to government services, just as I am sure it is the duty of every member of this House to make sure that happens when they get requests from someone in their constituencies.
The reputation of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is of being one of the most able constituency members in the House. He deals constantly with constituency problems. Were he not able to write as good a letter on a constituency problem as Mr. Lalonde did on behalf of the Prime Minister, I would be very surprised. In fact the letter that was written by Mr. Marc Lalonde I would not seek to table.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to read to the House a letter written by the executive secretary to the Prime Minister, Mr. Lalonde, dated April 14, 1970, to Mr. Louis Lapointe of Miron Limitee, 2201 Jarry West, Montreal, Que. This is what he wrote.
My dear Louis:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated April 6 as well as the attached documents.
Confidence in Government
I had already seen Mr. Stoner when I received your letter. I had however raised the problem as you had indicated to me during our meeting and in your letter. I asked Mr. Stoner to instruct Mr. Windsor to proceed without delay with this file.
I must say that I am surprised by your refusal to provide a complete copy of your agreement with the Quebec Liquor Board. I cannot accept the principle whereby a public body such as the Quebec Liquor Board may enter into a contract agreement with private concerns and not make public such operation licences. I have no idea what the department will do about your refusal to produce a copy of the agreement, but I must confess that if I were in their place, I would insist to get a copy of the official document. At least I would require a certified copy endorsed by the Board in respect of the extent of your lease.
I hope there will not be undue delays in this matter and if you have any difficulty, be sure to let me know.
Yours very truly,
Marc Lalonde Executive Secretary
Mr. Speaker, I have read this letter into the record to reply to charges made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) about the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). I believe the whole thing is quite clear, as I indicated before recess. It is a letter of a kind I could have written as a member of parliament.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton could have written such a letter. Indeed, the leader of the opposition could have written it. Those are things we are constantly asked to do by our constituents. I myself do it regularly.
Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the motion presented to the House and which we are debating. Obviously, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) barked up the wrong tree in this whole thing. He wanted to deal with honesty, integrity and so on in public affairs. He brought up three matters that have been explained by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), namely the dredging contracts, Sky Exports Shop and the Estey inquiry. There are now inquiries of a kind or another and we are awaiting reports.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Central Nova (M. MacKay) evidently lacked seriousness in his accusations. The government is not in the least involved; he has failed to demonstrate that the government had anything to do with this. Whoever reads the hon. member's motion realizes that he is seeking action on the part of the government, that he wants an investigation-indeed he wants an investigation-and that he bases his request on two allegations which the minister has explained, first, the question of the double hearsay, which he admits may be wrong, and second, the question of the return of the tender money, which the minister has said was due on inaccurate and inadmissible tender.
As to the motion itself, the hon. member urges the government to take immediate action to restore public confidence in the government's efforts to control conflict of interest and other improprieties of public officials, most especially with regard to government contract and leasing procedures and practices.
Therefore he is attacking public officials, not the government, not hon. members, but public officials. And what surprises me most is the fact that the hon. member for

November 20, 1975
Confidence in Government
Grenville-Carleton, who is always trying to defend civil servants in the House, is supporting this motion.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, public servants are not here to defend themselves. So, I will try to defend them because those public servants have obligations. First of all, they have guidelines to follow related to their behaviour as individuals confronted with their responsibilities as public servants; second, they have to follow guidelines and regulations set out by each department regarding contracts and the tendering and leasing procedure in general.
Regulation 75-530 dated September 2, 1975 on government dealings sets out all the limitations imposed by every department, and I simply want to quote section 5. The public is not aware of that, since it is believed that the government is free to award the contracts they want whenever they want and to whomever they want to award them. I quote section 5:
5. (1) Subject to this regulation.
(a)	no contract can be agreed on, and
(b)	the amount of a contract cannot be increased without the approval of Treasury Board.
(2) In cases where the present regulations stipulate that the contracting authority is not empowered
(a)	to sign the contract, or
(b)	to increase the amount of the contract, without the approval of the Treasury Board, the latter is authorized to give its approval.
Now, to go back to the instructions. The document was issued by the Treasury Board: "Policies and guidelines for Canadian government contracts". This document contains 41 pages of instructions given to every government department. We readily see what it deals with by consulting the table of contents: first of all, work distribution between the purchasing departments and the common services agencies; the purposes of the document, of which, firstly, the policy. I quote, as follows, from page 5 of that document:
The government purchasing procedure serves the purpose of obtaining supplies and services, of building works and signing leases through contractual provisions which best serve the specific requirements of the programs of the government of Canada. The contracts of the government should be entered into so as to guarantee:
(a)	the best possible terms from the triple point of view of quality, time limits and total cost of the goods or services purchased throughout their useful life;
(b)	a reasonable use of public funds; and
(c)	if needs be, that national policies and objectives are taken into account.
Mr. Speaker, this objective is pursued over 41 pages. There is a section which I regard as very important, the one about the protection of the interests of the Crown, that is of the Canadian people. First, financial guarantees; second, contract arrangements; third, insurances; finally, the purchasing process, the procedure to follow to negotiate contracts between the Crown and individuals in the private sector.
We find a definition of requirements, that is what is needed. There is a list of purchasing methods, or ways of purchasing the goods that are needed. Then the price and the way of determining prices are dealt with. Mr. Speaker, invitations to tender and selection of the contractor are found on page 25 of the document. On that page the procedure to follow to invite tenders is explained.

I quote clause 5.40 on page 25:
5.40	As indicated in the policy statement, the purchasing method used for a given purchase should give eligible businesses the same opportunity to deal with the government, within the application limits. The following guidelines describe different selection methods to be used according to the circumstances.
5.41	Notices in newspapers
5.42	Use of the postal lists of bidders
Mr. Speaker, I shall not read the whole document because it is very long. All I want to indicate by this is that for a long time we have had very strict guidelines on the way the government and civil servants should proceed for awarding contracts. There are restraints as to the duty of civil servants. All I want to indicate in conclusion is that it is impossible, no matter the importance of the guidelines established, to believe that we will be able to obliterate all loopholes and all frauds, human nature being what it is. We try to do away with them as much as possible, but being realistic we realize-
It is impossible, Mr. Speaker, to do away with human nature and criminality. For anyone to think that eventually there will be complete elimination of that conduct is unrealistic.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take part to this opposition day. It has made possible the presentation of a motion relating directly to conflicts of interest. I listened very carefully to the previous speaker who seemed quite intent on defending himself. I do not think that the motion accuses anybody. On the contrary, I think it simply requests Parliament, hon. members, to try to avoid those allusions which have been made for so many years. There were also inquiries that proved the government or governments had certain problems within their departments or services. And when the motion states clearly:
That this House noting the public is concerned-
I think this is ever more important, Mr. Speaker. You and all hon. members are aware that politicians have lost much credibility on account of rumours which are heard now and then. I realize some hon. members may be worried by our present discussions of events which were published in the newspapers. I shall bear testimony to this, shortly. We are not accusing anyone, far from it, but simply avail ourselves of the opportunity to urge the government to scrutinize all its departments and agencies and try to eliminate abuses, if any.
A while ago, the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) admitted that it is not easy to eliminate all wrongdoings. But to which extent should we press the government to check those abuses or those errors-if they are-while profiteers manage to convince the public that politics is a dirty game? In my opinion, this is what we are trying to do when we say that government leaders must be free from any suspicion. I think this is an important requirement that should be met.
November 20, 1975

The newspapers recently reported such cases, which do not improve the standing of members of Parliament. I can read in a newpaper:	"RCMP search Senator Louis
Giguere's offices and home". I am not the one who reports it, the newspapers do; this merely proves how important it is to change the situation and, if necessary, to proceed with a judicial inquiry. I will quote a well known Montreal reporter who believes that such an inquiry should be done. Further, one can read: "RCMP search senator's offices-" This is an excerpt from another Montreal daily newspaper. "RCMP inquire on alleged fraud of $60 million at Mirabel". "Giguere case still on front pages". "$95,000 in assets". "New scandal at Air Canada". This news is reported in the newspapers. A $5,000 bribe to the Liberals.
Mr. Speaker, those are so many newspaper headlines, so many things that lead people to believe that Parliament is definitely corrupt, but I do not think that all those sitting in this Parliament are corrupt.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from an editorial by Claude Ryan who, I believe, is held in high isteem. He refers more specifically to further details provided by a Toronto newspaper The Globe and Mail, concerning the Sky Shop Exports Limited.
Senator Giguere attempted the other evening, before his Senate colleagues, to deny any suspicion of irregularity ... not only did it restrict singularly the full impact of the case ...
Until further notice, any strictly private individual or society is entitled in this country to make gifts to anyone, provided it is done legally. In case of gifts to political parties the Canada Elections Act now requires that they be reported to the returning officer and that this information be made available to the press and the public. But the act was not yet in force at the time of the transactions between Sky Exports Shops and Senator Giguere. Therefore, it could not be involved to blame Mr. Giguere for having bought at unusually attractive conditions in 1972 shares that he was able to sell back a few months later at an incredible profit of almost 2,00.0 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, the title is: "The Giguere Case; Why 2,000 per cent?
Among the other circumstances that look fishy in this story, there are at least three which deserve special attention:
(a) The directors of Sky Exports Shops had at the time a secret guarantee from the Quebec Liquor Board that they would be the only ones allowed to buy alcoholic beverages from the Board for sale at Dorval airport. It is understood that the person at the RAQ responsible for this agreement has been replaced since then. Therefore, there is reason to believe that this type of practice has come to an end. But it is important to know if federal authorities were informed at the time. According to the information made public in the last few days, it seems that they were. How can one explain that they could have been party to a practice which went directly against the rules of free competition for the granting of federal permits?
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it is indeed something to wonder about. Earlier today, if I remember well, someone mentioned a correspondence between the executive secretary to the Prime Minister, now the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and Mr. Lapointe.
Well, there is no proof in those letters that the minister did something wrong. But the question is there: how come the attitude of the government of Quebec with respect to the granting of those permits was not criticized? A few months after their permit was renewed, the exporters of Sky Exports Shop sold their business at the price of $20 a share, enabling Senator Giguere to make a profit of $95,000 within a year. Considering most of the value of that busi-
Confidence in Government
ness lay in the exclusive permit it was granted by the federal government, he made quite a pretty penny indeed.
Well, representations were made to the executive secretary to the Prime Minister, now Minister of National Health and Welfare, by the chairman of Sky Exports Shop who asked him to appeal to the Minister of Transport to speed up the expected decision. The present Minister of National Health and Welfare denies receiving any monies in that respect, and we will take his word on it.
However, in his letter to the Deputy Minister of Transport, we note an apparently unusual insistance. Here is, Mr. Speaker, an editorial of a very well known daily Montreal paper which raises a number of questions and calls for answers. I think it is quite normal and in the interest of the public right that we should ask certain questions to which the public is entitled to expect answers. Earlier today, I think, someone mentioned $10,000 paid to Mr. Lapointe to have him come a few times to Ottawa, and request an extension of his contracts.
It might be important to know up to what point the government should not disclose that $10,000 expense. It does not take $10,000 indeed, Mr. Speaker, to come three or four times to Ottawa. I think agreement to that extension was obtained within one month, from January 8 to February or March.
Mr. Lapointe, I agree, made a few trips to Ottawa. He was given $2,000, $3,000 or $5,000 to negotiate, hoping there would be an affirmative response. How was that $10,000 spend? Those are questions we ask without accusing anyone, but I think the public would be quite interested in knowing where that money went and whether Mr. Lapointe really spend $10,000 on trips and meals. We have nothing against that, we would like the question to be asked, considering the amount, to come from time to time to solicit a little service for reasons we do not know either.
In any case, I think it is a question that deserves to be asked. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today invites members to ask the government for closer monitoring that we have had up to now, and particularly eliminate those scandals we have across the country. We had others, with the result that the public loses faith in men in public life, the credibility not only of this government but of this Parliament-and we make up this Parliament- is also down. It is not very interesting for us to be catalogued in a general way because newspapers indeed report suppositions perhaps, as well as allegations, and in certain cases evidence was put forward.
So, that is why we try to bring this government to shed light on matters such as those with which I dealt earlier, and which are publicly reported in newspapers, and I think nobody can blame us for working in that sense. I heard other members make certain comments today in that respect and we are trying to get rid of and eliminate those conflicts of interest. Obviously, the leaders of a government must be above suspicion. The kind of intolerable situation which undermines public confidence in the normal process of our institutions in equally important.
We would hope to bring about such things. All these articles and statements encourage many people to make easy and negative criticisms about politicians, and we are always disappointed to see such articles or scandals,

November 20, 1975
Confidence in Government
because we are directly involved, whether we want it or not. We must ensure that politicians exercise great care regarding conflicts of interest. A piece of legislation was adopted hardly a year ago on this matter, and I believe that we can never do too much to eliminate these conflicts of interest. I recognize that people in public life must, and rightly so, be careful about public morality, and this gives us even more reason to demand stricter control on the part of the government. It is up to the government to throw some light and clarify any such matters which might raise some doubts about the honesty of politicians. Once again, I believe that we are justified in demanding that these things reported in the newspapers be clarified. Reporters have brought these things up and the public is expecting some answers. It is therefore important to clarify the relationship that may exist between the government and certain financial interests.
Mr. Speaker, such is the purpose of this motion and we are asking only one thing from the government: That it throw light on some points which are now unclear-and the public is aware that there have been quite attractive profits. Are these profits justified? We should be told if they are. We have nothing against the fact that an amount of $10,000 was granted to a gentleman who has some representations to make, as long as these things make sense. Those are the questions that we are asking. Men who may not have been directly involved with a department, as they now are, may have had relationships which are quite legitimate in politics, and we admit this. But once again, we are asking the government to clarify those things that we and the population find fishy and which were brought to the attention of the public. In the light of the information we might get on these matters, it is possible that the answer be accurate. And if errors were made, we will have to ask the government to take action. A judicial inquiry has been urged. A well known editorialist among many other people feels there is ground for an inquiry. I believe the government will never have been served better than by the group of members urging that the matter be aired. These members would be happy to see the government put a stop to those practices, that corruption the public is so concerned about. I believe it is in Parliament's interest and it is important to both members in this House and those who wish to enter prolitics that they should not be termed generally "shady politicians". I therefore hope the government will shed light on those things and what it will be capable of preventing their future occurrence.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us, urging the government to take action "to restore confidence in the government's efforts to control conflict of interest and other improprieties of public officials," is timely, but limited and limiting in that it seems to place on government alone a responsibility that should properly be shared by the opposition, the civil service, by the media, and by all Canadians who care about the democratic process.
Present day concern about the conduct of public officials reflects a number of factors-some positive, some less so. On the positive side, public awareness and public requirements of standards of behaviour from elected officials and

civil servants are higher than they have ever been. Practices which were tolerated ten years ago, such as, for example, establishing private trust funds to supplement a politician's income are no longer acceptable.
We must all welcome this greater vigilance of the public and the clearly articulated wish of Canadians that politicians not only be, but appear to be independent and not subject to inappropriate influence or an appearance of influence in the exercise of their public duties and responsibilities.
The Election Expenses Act, with its provisions for disclosure and its encouragement by way of tax credits of small donations, represents one important response of the government to this legitimate concern of Canadians.
The green paper entitled "Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest" which was prepared in July, 1973, under the auspices of the Privy Council, represents another government initiative to remain responsive to the contemporary needs and values of Canadians.
The then president of the privy council recognized that:
... the evolution of public standards has out-distanced the development of formal rules which should apply to the conduct of members of parliament. Furthermore, the role of the member of parliament has become more complex and members may increasingly find themselves in situations for which no adequate rules or guidelines exist to aid them in ensuring that their conduct respects their fiduciary duty. Perhaps most important, the increasing involvement of modern government in society has blurred the line between public and private matters to the extent that both the public and parliament seem agreed that a systematic and public set of standards is now required.
Although the proposals made in the green paper were restricted in their application to members of the House of Commons and senators, the green paper stated that the government intended to develop "a comprehensive policy on the standard of conduct expected of officials at all levels of government.
On December 18, 1973, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tabled an order in council setting out guidelines for public servants and those appointed to public office by the Governor General in Council. The underlying principle of these guidelines is an obligation on the part of public servants to act in a manner so scrupulous that it will bear the closest public scrutiny. Public servants are, therefore, required not to place themselves in a position where they are under obligation to any person who might benefit from special consideration or favour on their part, or seek in any way to gain special treatment from them. Equally, a public servant may not have a pecuniary interest that could conflict in any manner with the discharge of his official duties.
Public servants are now expected, as are ministers of the Crown, upon appointment to office, to disclose all business interests that could be construed as being in actual or potential conflict with their official duties, and to arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent conflicts of interest from arising if there is any risk of that occurring. Public servants are required to manage their affairs so as not to benefit, or appear to benefit, from the use of information acquired in the course of their official duties that is not generally available to the public.
In the matter of contracts specifically mentioned in the motion of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), public servants are asked not to place them-
November 20, 1975

selves in a position where they could derive any direct or indirect benefit or interest from a government contract over which they can influence decisions.
In the past the matter of conflict of interest with regard to public servants was not of great public concern. It was a matter of principle that on entering the public service one severed all connections with the business world and with political parties. However, in recent years new policies in the public service have brought some changes. For example, under the Public Service Commission's career assignment program business people have been brought into the service, and public servants have been assigned to jobs in industry. In the senior executive interchange program public service appointments are filled by businessmen and women, and public servants are transferred to industry on a temporary basis. Deputy ministers have also been brought in from outside the public service.
In these new circumstances men and women may find themselves in situations where their public duty conflicts with their own interests or those of the company with which they have been associated. On the other hand one can argue that an official who withdraws from decision making in matters relating to his or her former business may well become ineffective in his or her public service capacity.
When the Prime Minister tabled these guidelines, Crown corporations were also asked to develop standards and guidelines for their employees. The then minister of justice was requested to review existing legislation with respect to judicial or quasi-judicial appointments, with a view to bringing it into conformity with established standard^ of conduct for other officials in government service. On December 31, 1973, the Treasury Board followed the Prime Minister's directive by issuing a circular to all heads of departments. The initial disclosures were to be made by June 30, 1974.
During the debate on the guidelines the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised the criticism that the order in council lacked definitions and provisions for enforcement.
In the case of members of parliament a number of statutes now contain provisions on conflict of interest. These include the Canada Elections Act, the Criminal Code, the House of Commons Act, the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Rules of the Senate, and the Laws and Usages of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, as preserved by Section 18 of the British North America Act and Section 4 of the Senate and the House of Commons Act.
Part III of the green paper dealt with possible weaknesses, omissions, and loopholes in current legislation, and considered that some provisions may be out of date and in need of revision in the light of changing circumstances. The green paper proposed that legislative provisions concerning conflicts of interest of members of parliament should be contained in a new act to be known as the Independence of Parliament Act, with the exception of bribery which would continue to be dealt with under the Criminal Code.
At present Canadian legislation on government contracts held by members of the House of Commons is found
Confidence in Government
almost entirely in the Senate and House of Commons Act. The basic principle expressed is that a member of the House of Commons or candidate should not be party to a government contract as a result of which he, or she, is a recipient of public funds. This provision has been criticized on grounds of ambiguousness.
The discussion draft of the Independence of Parliament Act, which was included as an appendix to the green paper, made seven proposals with regard to government contracts. The principle, generally, is that participation in a government contract by a member of parliament constitutes a conflict of interest and a violation of the member's fiduciary duty. It was also recommended that no member of parliament should be permitted to participate in the management or direction of a company having a government contract or agreement. It was also suggested that disclosure should be made by registering annually a list of companies in which the member was an officer, director or manager.
Some of the exceptions proposed were: that a member of parliament should be permitted to own shares in publicly traded companies that deal with the government, provided the member is not a director, nor in active management of those companies, and that he or she holds less than 5 per cent of the stock, such interest to be registered annually; that a member may participate in a contract if the aggregate value is less than $1,000 in any one fiscal year, the details of such interest also to be registered; that a member may hold a government contract if the completion of such contract devolves on him by descent, marriage, or operation of law, provided the member disposes of the contract within 12 months. Again the details are to be registered.
The discussion draft proposed that the former tenuous custom of declaring financial interests in a matter during debate and question period should be formalized and incorporated in the Standing Orders of the House and Rules of the Senate. No particular sanction was proposed for a violation, although a wide variety of sanctions is available. It was suggested that the standing committees of both Houses would provide guidance regarding particular situations.
The draft suggested retention of the practice whereby a member of the House, or a senator, is prohibited from voting on any question in which he or she has a pecuniary interest. It was proposed that the Standing Orders of the House and Rules of the Senate should caution members to exercise care in managing their investments so that they do not benefit, or appear to benefit, from the use of information which may have been available to them confidentially. Severe penalties were suggested for breaches.
As hon. members know, the green paper was referred first to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, which has reported to this House. The Senate is currently discussing the report. The green paper was intended as a first step in the evolution of a systematic and public set of standards. I hope that today's discussion, together with the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and the debate in the Senate will contribute to this process.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) expressed concern about the green paper being still before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

November 20, 1975
Confidence in Government
Apparently he did not know that the committee reported last June. During the proceedings of that committee the same sense of urgency was not always demonstrated by his colleagues.
At early committee meetings some opposition members wanted public disclosure and severe restrictions for ministers only. Being newly elected I was surprised to hear opposition members suggest that private members of parliament could not be in conflict of interest. Some opposition members preferred to use their time questioning the authorship of the green paper instead of discussing the content or proposing new measures. Despite these initial delays all parties worked constructively on the guidelines which, as the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker) said this afternoon, went beyond the green paper's recommendations and were accepted unanimously.
As the green paper stated, "the prestige and effectiveness of the Canadian parliament depend greatly on the public's confidence in the willingness of parliamentarians to resolve conflicts of interest." You will note that the reference is to parliament and parliamentarians, not to government alone. The motion before the House deals with the restoration of public confidence. Just as the green paper deals with avoiding not only conflict of interest but the appearance of conflict of interest, I take it it is the duty of parliamentarians not only to define and observe rules of conduct but also to inform the public of the existence of those rules, and thus maintain public confidence.
Members of the official opposition have a special responsibility to be accurate as well as hard hitting in their criticisms-to present a balanced picture of things as they are, not to attribute bad motives or behaviour without proof. A well respected member of the official opposition once said at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections that democracy is a delicate flower. Certainly the number of healthy democracies in the world today is disconcertingly small, and we cannot take ours for granted.
Free speech, open criticism, and discussion of issues are central to democracy, but negative cynical criticism and attacks on personal integrity tend to erode public confidence in democratic institutions. Maintaining and restoring public confidence require leadership by government, but also require restraint and concern for accuracy on the part of both opposition and the media.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, what we have before us today is a gently worded resolution by the quiet and gentle member from Central Nova, containing the word improprieties, and suggesting the government should take immediate action to restore public confidence. He then goes on to give one or two bits of evidence.
I want to say at the outset that the samples of evidence given in the motion are such a small proportion of the sins of the government that you hardly even know there is more than a mosquito biting an elephant. And in all the answers we have heard from the government today not one has even mentioned that $95,000. The minister made reference to picayune little points made by the hon. member for

Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). Everyone knows what we are talking about, and they carefully avoid it.
Let me just list the type of things which should be in the motion, Mr. Speaker, and I could double it and triple it if I wished. How about the dismissal of the Chief Commissioner of the Board of Grain Commissioners for only one cause-he refused to play the political patronage game of the government in Montreal?


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, how about the fact that at this very moment there are criminal court proceedings going on in Regina, Saskatchewan-the chief operational head of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has had his preliminary hearing and faces criminal fraud proceedings? And we get these moral lectures on behaviour as it should be, according to some mythical guidelines. The government, instead of trying to bring this out into the open, periodically tries to bring the Prairie Farm Assistance Act here to be repealed so we will not be able to talk about it any more.
All hon. members remember just a short while ago that one newspaper which took a different editorial position from the one the government has, lost all its government advertising. Who enforced this action? Why, it was the then minister of energy, mines and resources. Punish a person, if he disagrees with the government! This is not ten years ago in the weak days of government under Pearson. This is right now. And what did they do with that minister? They made him the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). They have the morality of a bunch of alley cats.
Look at the questions about the Montreal pipeline I put a year ago in the House. Who was on this committee representing the government dealing with the business firms and trying to get them to build the Montreal pipeline? First, I heard they were to get the Deputy Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson). Then the Energy Board officers were there. Finally, after a little bit of questioning, the minister admitted that someone from his department was there. From his office, is what he meant to say. And one of the reasons for the delay was somebody telling these companies that if they wanted things speeded up they should make sure they hired public engineering people from the right place. The minister in this case was the same minister of energy, mines and resources, the patronage boss for the province of Ontario.
If I dipped my nose into the smell which comes out of CIDA it would be a stinking mess you would have to bring into this House. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) made a trip to Israel. Did he use a government plane, a commercial plane? Oh, no. He made the trip on a friend's plane-a friend who was doing big business with the government.
Then we have the great mystery of what we will call the Austin case. The member for Central Nova tried to get several questions placed on the order paper. They were not allowed on the order paper. These questions were addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). They have been published in the newspapers but are not allowed in this House. Is the government trying to build up confidence in the minds of the people of Canada that it is running a clean shop here?
November 20, 1975

I will go further, Mr. Speaker. Even with the Elections Act of 1974 in place there is blackmail going on with the business and professional men in this country undertaken by the bagmen of the government. These are the types of thing which should be in the motion and I think the hon. member for Central Nova should be criticized because he is so moderate, and so gentle with regard to these very serious things.
Last evening I spent a little time reading through some of the recommendations of the five volumes of the Glassco Commission Report. This was a commission set up 15 years ago to try to tighten up the looseness and the duplication in government spending about which the member for Central Nova was talking. All I wish to say is that the royal commission reported some 12 years ago, recommending that we decentralize the control of this huge labyrinth of administration from Treasury Board and put responsibility on the individual departments to do more. Then it adds these phrases, over and over again, "Pay these civil servants more so they can do the job more effectively, and then insist on accountability." What they have done is raise the salaries all right. They have not decentralized it very much, and they forgot the key word, accountability.
What do I mean by accountability? When these sort of things happen to a person in charge at a responsible level, a member of this parliament, whether senator or member of this House, you ask him to resign. That is accountability. Anyone having anything to do with these sort of smelly operations should resign. Or you tell senior civil servants, who are now paid the equivalent of the salaries of corporate heads, that they are fired, without any recommendation for another job.
In this particular case we have the ex-minister of transport, the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson), and if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wants to prove to the people of this country that this thing will never happen again, he should ask the minister for his resignation, because he presided over the treasury board, I understand, when this decision was made. Ask the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), who was working then for the Prime Minister and, according to the evidence, doing a constituency job as a friend of a man from Montreal. He gave an order that the file should be opened and acted on. I ask for that minister's resignation. Then the people will know you are taking action to stop this type of thing.
Patronage is not a new word in this House. I do not suppose that even in an NDP government you get rid of it. Even they are hiring defeated politicians. But there has to be a certain standard, or a politician loses credibility across the country. I happen to come from the province of Saskatchewan where we endured for many decades the machine politics of the Liberals, euphemistically called the Gardiner machine, but it kept on going after he disappeared.
I belonged to an administration that was here from 1957 to 1963, and many senior newsmen in the press gallery today claim that we defeated ourselves by trying to stop patronage and corruption in places like the post office, public works, PFRA and PFAA. Not one of the people
Confidence in Government
involved was fired. When the 2,000 people that I had personal knowledge of were told there would be no dismissals but to keep out of this silly political business, only six broke that direction from the minister, and not one of those six was fired. They got a second warning and then were removed.
The day of hiring people for their political wallop, the day of using civil servants to act at election time, is over except for the west. The present political czar in the west- I call him the crown prince-is trying to rebuild the organization, and this explains why the Liberals ran third in so many districts in Saskatchewan last June. In the minister's own area the Liberals ran a poor third. I am simply pointing out that we have heard a lot of nonsense in this debate from hon. members opposite. No one has even mentioned the $95,000 which is evidence that infringes the members of parliament act and the members of the senate act. This absence of any mention of the $95,000 means that ministers are not enforcing accountability among their own people. As the Prime Minister said the other day, he could not see any evidence of conflict of interest in the payment of $95,000 just for being a friend.


Jean-Jacques Blais: He never said that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My hon. friend from Nipissing reminds me of a rain barrel; the emptier the barrel, the more noise it makes when you beat it. He was certainly making a noise tonight. I know the tricks of these country people. When they have a poor case they yell at the top of their voice. The hon. member mentioned, for example, that he was not here when all these ministers were going right and left while the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was on the warpath. Nearly a score of ministers disappeared from that one administration over a period of time. The hon. member reminds me of what I told the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) some time ago, that you rarely find a good kernel of wheat in a full barrel of rat manure. Translated that means that if you keep associating with these people you become one of them.
What this whole matter adds up to is that in the last two decades we have moved into a permissive society. What started out as a move to get the government out of the bedroom has spread all through government, but instead of sex what we are talking about is a new form of permissiveness-that it is all right to put bagmen in the Senate. It is all right for them to make representations to friends, or to get friends to make representations to them. It is all right to appoint friends to high positions in Air Canada. It is all right to appoint defeated politicians to jobs across the country. There is nothing the matter with appointing a well trained, able, defeated politician. But when all of them are given an appointment, questions arise.
What we are witnessing in typical Canadian fashion is a Watergate-Canadian style. As the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) pointed out this afternoon, when the Minister of Transport, an ex-professor of law and ex-minister of justice, stood up in the House and made his unctuous, sanctimonious speech, it sounded so much like the repeated disclaimers of ex-president Nixon-everything will be disclosed, everything is all right-that type of

November 20, 1975
Confidence in Government
attitude proves to me and convinces me that there is a deliberate policy here of putting the lid on disclosure.
I mentioned the Board of Grain Commissioners. We do not have to go out and get a witness; the witness is sitting in the House today as a member of parliament. I refer to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) who was chief commissioner of the Board of Grain Commissioners, and was fired by the government. Under pressure he refused to play politics with the movement of grain to the hungry people of the world, and the answer was dismissal. I am the one who said that the best thing to do when this sort of thing happens is to run for office, become a member of parliament, and whenever you have the occasion just remind the government of the type of people they are.
I mentioned the PFAA charges. I am not going to say anything about the particular charges because they are still before the court at the present time, but I am not going to hide my intentions. When the court cases are over, that will not be the end of the matter. In a court, tangible evidence has to be produced. If anyone is going to suggest to the rational people of this country that one man at a level way down designed this whole operation, that will not be acceptable to the House of Commons. We want to know how far this conspiracy to spend public money for purposes of electing government members reached into the parliamentary secretaryships, the executive assistants, and perhaps even members of the cabinet. Those are not questions you turn over to the police for investigation. This is a responsibility of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and I am glad that the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore stood up today and said that was the place for them, because we will be there before this thing is over.
As I conclude I want to remind hon. members on the other side of the House that these dismissals I recommend are not only for ministers but for one or two civil servants right at the upper end. Once you cut the knot and get rid of them, it is amazing to find how few there really are.
Just to show how serious this is, let me put it this way. The great strength of the Canadian civil service over the years has been in the fact that they watch the politicians and they hold on to their integrity. Remember the civil servant in the deputy minister's office a few years ago when the political manoeuverers around here were trying to get an immigrant in who was offering big sums of money for Canadian citizenship. This deputy minister stood in their way, and said no. I would like to believe that he is still there, but he is not. The truth is astounding, because there was a deputy minister in Energy, Mines and Resources last year who jumped to principal clerk in the Prime Minister's office, and six months later seven senior civil servants decided to retire. That is how serious this is.
What we have to do here is ask the Prime Minister for action, and my interpretation of action in this motion is the dismissal of all those associated with this case as a warning to all those others doing this monkeyshining that they had better run for the hills.
Today is November 20, the birthday of Sir Wilfrid Lauri-er. In the interest of getting back the confidence of the people the government should indicate its intention to stop

this kind of monkeyshines by making this day in 1975 known as the Laurier day massacre of all those people sliding in and out, and doing these things.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, my contribution to this debate will deal with a problem that is not only a dilemma with which the government is faced but involves a situation which has become quite intolerable as it affects not only every citizen of our country, but every aspect of their every day lives.
I want to take a rational and responsible approach by identifying the issue for debate today as a human problem. It is a human weakness to be arrogant when in a safe position of power. It is human to be loyal to one's friends who have helped and offered support along the rugged trail of political success. To fall and succumb to the dangers of such human activities is not only the weakness of the present government but, indeed, it is a weakness of our political process or system.
It is, of course, also human to try to secure one's position, and to strive for bigger and better things. Regardless of how hard we try to regulate and control the lives of individuals, we will never succeed in making everyone equal by destroying the competitive spirit in individuals and the desire to be at least equal or, ideally, just a nose length ahead of the next guy.
The politician in that sense is no different from the businessman. The latter struggles to become established, celebrates the official opening of his first plant as the achievement of a lifetime, and as soon as the first customer walks through the door and the first day's proceeds are counted, the process of expansion begins. The businessman, like the politician, must, in order to secure his position, broaden his support, expand his scope, diversify his operations, and make himself indispensable.
We hear much about powerful groups within our society today, such as large corporations which have evolved from the world of business and have become so powerful, monopolistic, and indispensable in nature that they now pose the most serious threat to the survival of the very system from which they evolved-the free enterprise world.
There are large unions too which, in order to secure their position to offer more and better concessions to their members, have made themselves indispensable and all-powerful, even ready now to challenge the institution itself.
The institution of government was planned and built with regard to these weaknesses, and in normal times the safeguards are sufficient. Unlike the businessman, the politician must expose himself to the test periodically. The government itself is subjected to scrutiny by the House of Commons in normal times. The collective work of this Chamber is exposed to sober, second look and evaluation by elders who have mastered the art of life and who have, by virtue of their accomplishments, been appointed to serve our country, if for no other purpose than to assure that the politicians who bear on their shoulders such great responsibility do not allow these human weaknesses to influence their work or their decisions.
November 20, 1975

I said that this was so during normal times. However, we are not living in normal times. Something has gone wrong with the traditional process. Somehow a very powerful and very determined group of people have been able to free themselves of the constraints of the democratic system and are ruling instead of governing. They are possessed by yet another human weakness, namely, greed. Those who belong to this group have become the masters not the servants of their constituents. They have joined in unholy matrimony with the other powerful groups that have helped them on their way.
To be appointed to the Senate today means also to be offered directorships in a series of corporate offices. To be appointed to the executive council means to receive contributions to the election campaign from the unions.
How did this all come about? Many of us have speculated about this and have reached different conclusions. Money is power, or it provides an effective means of controlling power. There is no better way to demonstrate the centralization of power which we have experienced in Canada than by examining the fiscal and monetary strategy of the government.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is right, of course, as is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), when he says that the increase in government spending does not fairly reflect the activities and the increase in public services since, as they both argue, the increase in their budget from $6 billion to $32 billion in just ten years is mostly due to transfers of funds-taking from the rich and giving to the poor, taking from certain provinces and giving to other provinces.
The fact is that today almost all disposable income from our gross national product is fed into a central hopper. The super group of which I have spoken thus assumes the right to redistribute this seemingly unlimited wealth in a way not necessarily in the interests of the country as a whole. Is it then, having regard to the human weaknesses I have spoken of, any wonder that there are some Canadians who have been identified as friends of this all-powerful group and have become very rich and powerful themselves?
I want to take a closer look at some of those people behind the scenes. Some have already been identified by my colleagues. Once close to the top they become one and the same person. Their activity and influence is not confined to just the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Public Works, or the Ministry of Supply and Services.
I said earlier that the actions of these barons affect every aspect of the lives of Canadians. In the interest of continuity of the story my colleagues have laid out before us, let me lay out another story. Let us take a closer look at yet another most dedicated public servant who at the present time fulfils the role in the Prime Minister's office which was formerly carried out by, in Mr. Lapointe's most affectionate words, "my dear friend Marc". While a westerner of dubious distinction, who has now gone to his reward, filled the position for a brief period of time, the job is now in the hands of a most distinguished servant of the public interest, namely, Mr. James Coutts.
Mr. Coutts' career is colourful, and like his predecessors he too has of course friends who call him by his first name.
Confidence in Government
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Coutts also has friends who are close enough to him to make certain of his actions justifiable. He was once an appointment secretary of the former and late Prime Minister Pearson. Like so many of the people on the monopoly board of Liberal players, he retired early to assume a career of consulting. He became one of that elite group of Canadians who divide amongst themselves every year about $1 billion.
He became affiliated with the firm of Canada Consulting of Toronto, a firm which over the years enjoyed quite an impressive array of public assignments. He took some time out in 1974 to manage the affairs of our Prime Minister during those years. Madam Speaker, I could not possibly give you a complete list of that firm's success stories about which I am speaking. I refer to Canada Consulting of Toronto. But there is one insignificant little assignment which fits into my story best. It was the assignment to find a new head for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The former president was being retired, and the position had to be filled. It was not a difficult task, even though the price tag was, I understand, in the tens of thousands of dollars.
Three names were suggested. The choice was not difficult. Mr. William Teron was the obvious choice, a man with a most distinguished career in the field of housing, particularly high cost housing, because this is what we have much of in our country and are to be assured of more in the future.
Mr. Teron swiftly reciprocated. The corporation had to be restructured to make room for the technocrats who fit better into the scheme of things. Yes, Madam Speaker, as you might have guessed Mr. Coutts got the contract to recommend the changes which would bring peace and tranquility to the corporation. This assignment, I am told, was in the six figure dollar league, indeed a just reward.
Now, Madam Speaker, the new president of the corporation is endowed with a good measure of the human qualities of which I have talked earlier. He is on his way to making himself indispensable. He had little time for the former minister, and less time for the present housing minister. He has recently assumed the responsibility of the top civil service position in the Ministry of Urban Affairs.
He has been known to have the Secretary of the Privy Council write his public statements for him. He is now in a position to make, as well as carry out, the government's housing policy. The same efficiency experts who are the fear of the Housing Corporation are now also extending their activities to the Urban Affairs department. I am sure all will soon be in order there as well. But, while the enforcers of Canada Consulting are still roaming the halls of high government places, Mr. Coutts himself has moved back to a position from where he can serve his country, but more important serve his friends and those of the Liberal Party more diligently and effectively.
As you already know, he is now the principal secretary of the Prime Minister, and one wonders how many privileged Canadians feel, by virtue of their friendship with Mr. Coutts, justified to demand his services. But let us go back to our friend Mr. Teron, and let us bring into focus a short profile of his private business career. Time will only permit us to touch on the highlights of his most recent background.

November 20, 1975
Confidence in Government
In 1966 Mr. Teron, with a number of interesting people, incorporated a company called MNS Investment Limited. Along with Mr. Paul Matheson and J. B. Whitely we see names such as Paul Martin, Sr., Jack Austin, and Maurice Strong. These are very familiar names. Maurice Strong is known to us through his close relationship with the former secretary of state for external affairs and now our High Commissioner to England, who appointed Mr. Strong to oversee Canada's efforts in the field of foreign aid. Mr. Strong has lately been seen walking around carrying a Petro-Can.
In February of 1967 Etron Ltd. was incorporated to manage, I understand, the real estate properties Mr. Teron had accumulated. Messrs. Snipper, Cohen and Murray were the solicitors who incorporated the company and maintained the company's office. One of these gentlemen earned Mr. Teron's blind trust in recognition of his services.
Next we see Canadian Interurban Properties, a subsidiary of Power Corporation, acquire the assets of a company called William Teron Limited. He becomes vice-president in charge of planning and development for Interurban Properties. Plan and develop he did.
A short and unhappy corporate relationship with Cam-peau Corporation proved not too lucrative for Mr. Teron. We see him forming a new company called William Teron and Associates. This company concentrated on building apartments, hotels, and office buildings in large urban areas. Next we see the formation of a company called St. Maurice Capital Corporation. This group in 1970 acquired the outstanding shares of MNS Investments. The MNS shareholders, of course, gained an interest in the new company. Incidentally, among the investments held at the time or re-organization was about $55,000 worth of Brame-da Resources, and we also know all about that company.
It was around that time, or by late 1970, that Mr. Teron was seen to spend much time in the office of the then housing minister. Mr. Hignetts' terms as president of CMHC was due to expire in June of 1971, but was extended for two years after much backroom activity. This provided Mr. Teron with time to round out his empire and prepare his blind trust.
Other corporate names appear to complete the web. General Mortgage Corporation is taken over by St. Maurice Capital, and St. Maurice Properties becomes another subsidiary. And then, of course, there is the firm which maintains a penthouse office suite in the Carleton Towers, and which evolved from Etron Limited early in 1974. An impressive list of friends have found refuge there.
One does not have to step off the property surrounding this building to admire the real estate empire of that select group of great Canadians. Madam Speaker, one could go on and on. The question, of course, we have to ask ourselves is, how was it possible for Mr. Teron, who became president of CMHC in 1973, to divest himself of his friends and business interests? The answer, of course, is that it is not possible. CMHC, of course, depends on many of these corporations I have mentioned as a delivery system for the national housing program. His holdings are in blind trust, and that is all that is needed to conform with the 1973 conflict of interest guidelines behind which the Prime

Minister seeks refuge every time an embarrassing question is asked.
Blind trust to people like Mr. Teron means that Canadians have to blindly trust that the friends of the Liberal Party are acting not in their own interest, but in the interest of our country. If one examines the financial reports of the many and varied interests Mr. Teron held before and after assuming control of these high public offices, one comes to the conclusion that either Mr. Teron was managing his interests poorly before, or that his powerful position has something to do with the healthy growth of some of these companies after he blindly entrusted the management to someone else. In either case, this gentleman's qualifications are in question.
I want to quote from the 1973 guidelines which govern the conduct of public servants in such high offices. My colleagues have touched on the guidelines for government and members of parliament. I should like to quote three or four paragraphs:
3.	No conflict should exist or appear to exist between the private interests of public servants and their official duties. Upon appointment to office, public servants are expected to arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent conflicts of interest from arising.
4.	Public servants should exercise care in the management of their private affairs so as not to benefit, or appear to benefit, from the use of information acquired during the course of their official duties, which information is not generally available to the public.
5.	Public servants should not place themselves in a position where they could derive any direct or indirect benefit or interest from any government contracts over which they can influence decisions ...
8. Public servants should not accord, in the performance of their official duties, preferential treatment to relatives or friends or to organizations in which they or their relatives of friends have an interest, financial or otherwise.
Well, Madam Speaker, we will let you and the Canadian people judge in Mr. Teron's case.
I have only been able, in the short time allotted to me, to make passing reference to the activities of just one of many small groups of people who, in my opinion, are ripping off the system. I wish it were possible to demonstrate to the House how the activities of these powerful players in the Liberal monopoly game affect interest rates for domestic living in Canada-surely one of the most serious problems contributing to the high cost of housing. But time does not permit.
Let me rather pose this question, Madam Speaker: where is it all going to end? Well, times are changing. We do not enjoy the same degree of financial success and prosperity that we experienced in the post-war period. The gap between rich and poor is widening, and Canadians are about to take a closer look at those who shape the destiny of our country. What they will see is not a pretty picture, and they will demand a change.
Then there are people like Walter Rudnicki, a long time dedicated civil servant who fell victim to their frightening power play, and who will not surrender without a fight. His tragic case is before the courts, and he will not compromise is rights as a Canadian for a settlement out of court.
As I have said during my opening remarks, none of us are immune to these human weaknesses. What is going on in Canada today is only a result of the indifference and
November 20, 1975

ignorance of too many Canadians who have kept this government in power for too long and have allowed it to circumvent the democratic process.
I know that there are those of our colleagues, some of whom even sit on the other side of the House, who are not of the privileged few who head their letters "My Dear Marc", or "My Dear Jim", who will help us to bring the era to an end. Let us hope it will not be too late.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
| Translation]


Mr. Francis Fox (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I thank my dear colleague from Calgary. I was thinking about his remarkable comments on the results of a certain game.
Madam Speaker, I now come to the subject of this debate. Points have been raised, arguments have been made during the day by members of the official opposition. I would simply like to say that we had the impression today of witnessing a "de-escalation". On the basis of insinuations which seem serious by themselves, supported by anonymous affidavits which were flourished in the air, all that resulted during the debate in the colleagues of the mover of the motion themselves taking a stance against him. We witnessed a real "de-escalation", as I said. His own colleagues seemed very embarrassed to come back to the subject he had himself raised, and during the afternoon we heard apologies, people almost apologizing for being associated with the kind of things done today by the member in question.
The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) for example is maintaining that no accusations are being made. These are the hon. member's words. The hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) complains that the motion is incomplete. Well, if he has criticism to make about the incompetence of those who drafted the motion, he only has to turn around and face his own colleagues. Indeed he was really successful in underlining the incompetence of his colleagues who drafted the motion. It was almost an election speech, possibly unveiling his own election campaign and I hope, Madam Speaker, that it will be cleaner than the speech he made this evening.
It looks as if he chose the anniversary of Laurier to start off. He spoke of a slaughter. I have the impression, Madam Speaker, that the blue slaughter of February will be a reality well before his pious wishes for the red slaughter. He criticized my colleague the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) because he was not here in 1963 and because he does not know the great debates they may have had in this House at that time.
Madam Speaker, if the spectacle the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain gave us tonight is typical of the type of debate, of things that went on in the House of Commons at that time, I am very happy to be among the colleagues of the hon. member for Nipissing rather than those of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.
And so, we had a "de-escalation" throughout the day. The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) started off, followed by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who felt obliged to excuse him by saying it was the role of
Confidence in Government
the opposition to make that type of accusation. The hon. member for Joliette, as I mentioned before, also said that in fact the accusations were not made against the government, that they were pious wishes because everyone is interested in improving public administration in Canada. The situation is quite embarrassing. The last speaker of the party, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) did not even speak to the motion before the House. The only thing he mentioned was a series of "Dear Jim" and "Cher Marc", making allusions to people in the office of the Prime Minister, and more particularly to the current head of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. And those very same people, on the back and front benches of that opp party, Madam Speaker, keep saying to the government that more people in private enterprise should take part in government decisions. No sooner does someone leave the ranks of that same enterprise to give the Canadian people, the affairs of state, the benefit of his experience in a certain field, people like the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River rise and with innuendos and insinuations try to prove that there is something wrong somewhere. But he never lays a charge. He only gives innuendos and, frankly speaking, I do not think this is on a level with the kind of parliamentary debates we should hear in the House of Commons.
It has been said that the role of the opposition was to give the kind of show we had before us today. Madam Speaker, I always thought the role of the opposition was to make loyal opposition. In fact, the title of the opposition is "loyal opposition". I always thought it meant intellectually loyal. I was very disappointed about that throughout the day.
Is it really responsible, Madam Speaker, to hold up anonymous affidavits? Is it really responsible to say that there is no difference between allegations, to use the word of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) when he said this afternoon: True or not?
After all, the Canadian Parliament has become a place where the vilest rumours can be spread and thrown at the people's face without the least evidence. Hon. members opposite have reached the point where they talk about prima facie allegations. I would advise them all to return to their law textbooks or their books on the constitution and political science, and brush up their knowledge. There is no such thing as prima facie allegations but only prima facie evidence. Allegations as such are groundless!
By the way, they are the same members who, on many occasions, have accused reporters of the press gallery of reporting false information at times. I believe they could say in turn: "Have a good look at the members throwing allegations across the House and claiming that those unsubstantiated allegations amount to evidence or point to wrongdoing.
In his brief remarks, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) particularly disagreed with his colleague who put the motion when he said that public confidence in the government was decreasing. He should ask himself what is his own party's responsibility for this situation, because day after day, the only thing opposition parties can do is to criticize thoroughly the government's position without
9310

November 20, 1975
Confidence in Government
making the least positive suggestion or proposing any alternative. No wonder the public finds that opposition parties do not have much to offer and indeed they do not offer much.
Then, the hon. member for Joliette commented that the RCMP had searched Senator Giguere's offices and home. I think it is difficult to claim that government agencies do not do anything. On the contrary, those situations they hold against us are all to the government's credit and show quite clearly that there is no one in Canada who is not equal before the law, that nobody is above it. We had other examples in recent years, namely the action brought against CMHC officers. So, there was never any attempt to try and hyde anything. When there was some evidence that criminal offences had been committed, the government took its responsibilities. There is proof of that once again in the Hamilton case, the Air Canada and Mirabel cases that the RCMP are now investigating.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) suggested this afternoon that all those allegations, all those things were embarrassing for the government. I think this is not so. It is not embarrassing for the government to discover that a Crown official or agent might have committed at a certain time a criminal offence. If such was the case, if the evidence-and I stress evidence, not allegations out of nowhere-was brought before the government, on each occasion the government took its responsibilities, brought the persons involved before the courts which then acted according to the provisions of the Criminal Code.
In spite of what the hon. member for Yukon might have said or thought, nobody questioned the right of the hon. member for Central Nova to raise those matters in this House.
But we should really ask ourselves, Madam Speaker, if it was the best thing to do. The RCMP declared they had started their investigation nine months ago already. Nine months ago, Madam Speaker, and the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) has just made public accusations.
Sensationalism is very tempting. The RCMP commissioner regretted that the member did not proceed otherwise and, besides, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) did say this afternoon that in 1963 he had lodged a complaint and put his documents in the hands of law officers of the Crown.
To be efficient an inquiry must often be carried on without the knowledge of the suspected parties. The fleeting publicity made around a good part of this case may have given headlines to the hon. member but then it may also have made it easy to get rid of files and evidence that might have helped throw some light on those matters.
Finally, instead of seeking sensationalism by revealing every day some more information an approach which can only be profitable to the member who wants to make the headlines, to the accused or to the person suspected of some illegal action, Madam Speaker, I think that every member should rather give the information to whom it may concern, as suggested by the Minister of Justice, to the officers of the RCMP so that an official inquiry be carried on.

In fact, all the evidence presented to the government has been referred to the RCMP so they can accomplish the work with the great expertise recognized most of the time by hon. members opposite when they are not indulging in childish political partisanship.
The hon. member for Central Nova also mentioned things that I consider not too serious, things which did not relate to this debate at all. He started mentioning the PTV, passenger transport vehicles in use at Mirabel Airport. He found with a certain smile great relief in the fact that a certain PTV malfunctioned on the opening day of the airport.
Madam Speaker, he even went to the point of criticizing the operators of those PTV's. Those operators come from my area, they are the guys from home, the guys who were hired by Manpower Centres in three constituencies of the Mirabel and Greater Montreal areas. Those guys met every standard required by the Department of Transport, attended the necessary courses to perform their task, and they are now being childishly accused of not being able to perform their work.
I think it is somewhat disgusting to stress the kind of minor incident which was reported by the hon. member for Central Nova. Besides, he talked about Mirabel before and I guess it will not be the last time he will do so. For instance, he said, as the Minister of Transport stressed today, that some difficulty was experienced with respect to runways, and actually the Minister of Transport thoroughly disproved his statement.
That again is another example of a groundless representation, after what the Minister of Transport mentioned to the House this afternoon. But he is not afraid of those unfounded representations to the House. Not in the least.
I might also stress to him the fact that the development and design of Mirabel are the results, Madam Speaker, of the work of thousands of Quebec people and Canadians who are to us, in my area, a striking example of the genius of our province, and we will not have this kind of slander, this kind of libel which he thinks he is entitled to whether true or not, as he said when he mentioned examples this afternoon.
I shall tell him that the House of Commons is not the place for gossip, rumors, libel through anonymous affidavits. Opposition members dare cry out "shame". In my opinion, when a member rises and holds up to the House of Commons, to the members of this House, anonymous affidavits to tarnish the reputations of some people, I think this cry of "shame" does in fact fit opposition members much better.
Madam Speaker, if the hon. member, instead of wishing to enhance his reputation with gossips and rumours, brought forward some evidence of bad conduct, I would be the first one to support and back him up, because I really believe in an honest and just public administration in this country. That is just what we have and unless the hon. member has specific evidence to give us, I think he should wait until he is in position to do do.
Madam Speaker, some members opposite while they like to criticize government members prove by their protests, as soon as we pay them back in their own coin, that it is unacceptable, that in a certain way, members sitting on
November 20, 1975

this side of the House must bear their criticisms whether they are justified or not. Well, I tell them from this side of the House that each time they want to launch attacks as stupid and ridiculous as the debate this afternoon, we will pay them back in their own coin, argument for argument but not like the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), insult for insult, because we on this side of the House do not believe in the kind of language used by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain during this debate, a language which is not to the credit of members opposite. Further, I know very well that a number of them would not support the kind of remarks that were made, the language used this evening by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.
As far as the hon. member opposite is concerned, I shall wait, I will come to him latter on. I will discuss one by one the attitudes of members opposite, if they will wait. I now come to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). In a style exclusive to him, because nobody on this side would imitate it, he said the current situation is horrible, that we have reached the point where the RCMP are making raids in the offices and homes of parliamentarians. And in the same breath the hon. member goes on to say the government is "stonewalling" opposition charges. There is a clear contradiction there. Such inconsistent logic is hidden behind the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton's customary eloquence. And not fearing anything, he said in conclusion it is important an investigation be made on the matter, implicating no investigation is being made. If the RCMP raided a parliamentarian's office, if they are making raids here and there, how is it possible to suggest the government is doing nothing to clear these charges? I believe the hon. member is neither inconsistent or hard of hearing. He concluded in a certain manner, and I might paraphrase him in his own mother tongue: "If there is nothing to hide, open-up".
Finally, what a novel principle! Let us push aside serious investigations, let us open the door now to large public inquests. Let us open the door to insinuations. Let us open the door to innuendoes, charges they themselves called "prima facie allegations". But where then, may I ask, are our most basic principles?
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said that procedures before "law offices of the Crown", before officials of the Department of Justice, may lead to abuse. I presume the idea was that maybe the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General, after investigation by the RCMP, would shelve the latter's report. Frankly, I wonder how far the hon. member has gone, if he believes that kind of thing would be done on this side. The hon. member said this happened before, and in the context of his own indication, since the matter has been made public, he demonstrates such a situation is now impossible. In order that such a thing be true, three things would be required. First, that the Minister of Justice put the lid on the file. Second, that the Solicitor General put the lid on the file. Third, that the RCMP commissioner put the lid on the file.
And finally, the hon. member said that it is precisely what happened. After all, if that had happened, I suppose the file would have been buried, which it has not been.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member-
Confidence in Government


John Douglas Reynolds: Madam Speaker, It is a sad day in this House of Commons when the Liberal party will not stop thumping their desks so that a member of the opposition can speak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Douglas Reynolds: The hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox) said this debate was getting to a low point. I thought that low was reached in his speech. He talked about 1963, Madam Speaker, and he was not here in 1963.


An hon. Member:: Take your hands out of your pockets.


John Douglas Reynolds: I just wish the hon. member would read the debates of 1963. He would see that the ministers in his government who resigned at that time resigned because of accusations made by members on this side of the House who made accusations against the Liberal party that was corrupt at that time. I suggest to him that the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) and the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), who have made accusations in this House tonight, have also made those accusations outside this House of Commons.
The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River will make the same accusations he made in this House tonight outside the House of Commons to any press member, and if Mr. Teron wants to sue him he can do so.


An hon. Member:: Are you his lawyer?


John Douglas Reynolds: I do not have to be a lawyer to tell you that those facts can be backed. Next week, when the hon. member for Central Nova starts bringing out more of his file, just remember who just spoke and wanted to support us in getting a judicial inquiry into this sorry mess that is before this House of Commons now.
The government tells us to put it to the police, to bring matters up in a proper way. I have had some questions on the cleaning contract at Vancouver International Airport, the baggage contract there, the parking garage construction contract, and the new parking lot contract. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) was going to speak tonight on the car rental contracts at the Vancouver airport, but we cannot get answers from the government or the civil service about what is going on in those contracts. If we cannot get them that is why we have to make accusations in this House. If the government would make sure the opposition's questions were answered in a true and unbiased fashion we would not have to bring accusations in this House.
If we had got the information when we looked into the cement inquiry in British Columbia where some prominent Liberal members were involved and got fined-thank God we have a new Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) who tells us this will not happen again-we would have seen management people who collected more in bonuses than they had to pay in fines.
My time is up, Madam Speaker, but I want to finish by saying I back my colleagues. I want to thank the hon.
29956 - 37*72

November 20, 1975
Adjournment Debate
member for Central Nova for bringing up this debate in the House today. We are not afraid to back up our statements, but the Liberal members are ashamed of what is happening in their party, and ashamed to bring it before the people of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 58 the proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Madam Speaker, the question which I am debating tonight should concern both the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). Because of the disparity between the cost of transportation for fruit, mainly apples, from Washington state to eastern Canada, and Okanagan or Canadian apples to eastern Canada, it probably concerns the Minister of Transport more. However, this sort of problem should concern the Government of Canada as a whole.
The disparity is 43 cents a bushel box in favour of the United States apple growers, This will amount to $318,000 on the almost 890 cars of apples that have to be shipped into eastern Canada if the Okanagan Valley is to sell its large crop that was produced this year.
This is one cent per pound to the apple producer. It may not sound like much, but it is a tremendous amount to the apple producer of the Okanagan Valley, certainly when one realizes that he has to absorb it all. If he is to convince the five remaining apple buyers in eastern Canada to buy his product, he must be competitive especially as to price. With the buying power in so few hands, there is just no question of loyalty to Canadian producers anymore.
The Canadian apple producer must ship to eastern Canada on a delivered basis in order to meet this unfair competitive advantage. It means he must absorb the freight difference. It has to come directly out of his pocket. No one else in the total scheme of things suffers, and it is doubtful if the house wife will get her apples for a cent a pound less.
No wonder the apple producer becomes very upset. Talk about tariffs! Talk about free-trade in Canada! This one operation alone, given the high cost of transportation when

the Canadian railways arbitrarily decide to charge what the traffic will bear, gives our competitors in the United States an advantage that far outweighs any tariff protection we may have ever had. And when I say this, this does not just apply to apples alone in Canada. It also applies to the many other products being manufactured in Canada, especially by the small struggling manufacturer desperately trying to build his business, to keep up and to compete.
A good example of this is the manufacture of parta-board in Grand Forks, British Columbia. This company is struggling to maintain its market in eastern Canada against the freight rate advantage enjoyed by the competition from the United States. There are undoubtedly hundreds of manufacturers in the same position in Canada, whether it be in western Canada or eastern Canada.
Going back to apples, it is no wonder that the balance of trade in apples, Canada versus the United States, has so dramatically changed over the past four years. Four years ago when I left the industry as an official, we were shipping one million boxes of apples to the United States, and the United States was shipping almost one million boxes into Canada a very good balance and one with which we were not too unhappy. However, when one takes a look at the record today, just a short time later, it is astounding to see that the number of boxes of apples coming into Canada is almost three million, or three times what it was four years ago, and the amount of apples shipped from Canada to the United States is going down under the million mark.
I say to the minister, take a look at these records, because there is no doubt that the Canadian railways have to take some of the responsibility for what has happened in this balance of trade. Over the last few years we have been very short of cars to ship to eastern Canada and for export. This could well happen again this year, which would be very disastrous on top of the disparity in freight rates.
I say to the Minister of Transport that when he replies, almost in a sad dejected way, to my question by saying that he has no power over the railways, he had better make strong representation to them to the effect that it is when these companies, or monopolies if you will, fail to perform their functions properly in the best interest of the Canadian people that we must have more government interference.
I do not like to see more government interference or government power applied, but I recognize that it must happen when the Canadian railways are failing the people. When freight rates in Canada become a bigger barrier to Canadian manufacturers than tariffs, the minister must do some in depth soul-searching on this subject. Do not tell us you have no power. The Canadian government is all powerful. Let's not have the feeling that the railways run Canada. Either they do their job properly, or you must get the power so that you can be sure that they do it properly.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member no doubt knows, he raises an issue tonight which touches close to my heart as a westerner, and about which pretty well everyone from my part of Canada holds strong views. This evening, as we discuss this subject for which I have a great deal of sympathy, most members in the Cham-
November 20, 1975

ber are either westerners or maritimers. That shows how widespread is the concern on this subject.
Perhaps I can begin to assist my hon friend tonight by relating some background on this most contentious subject of freight rates which is of great interest to Canadians and, certainly, to the government.
For a number of years, as he indicated, the rates on fruit coming out of both the Okanagan Valley and Washington State were at pretty well the same level. Fairly recently, Canadian railways began to increase their rates to a significant extent. As justification, the railways cite increases in costs which have gone up tremendously. They argue that previous rates, even existing rates, do not seem to provide a sufficient return on investment.
To explain the differential between Canada and the United States, the railways point to such cost differences as the spread between the price of a refrigeration car in Canada and the price of the same unit for moving fresh fruit in the United States. Canadian purchases of such equipment cost something in the order of $20,000 more than they do on the American side. In addition, locomotives cost more in Canada. As a result of these factors, and perhaps others, relevant Canadian and U.S. freight rates for fruit coming from the west have started to part in favour of the American grower.
There have been extensive discussions, and probably more will follow-I hope they will-between officials of the Ministry of Transport and of the railways on this topic and, of course, on other freight rate issues.
As the hon. member knows, and as he has stated this evening, under present legislative arrangements the railways have the legal authority to establish rates within certain rules. The railways are, of course, subject to the current economic restraint program and must comply with the guidelines. In particular, I would refer here to the 95 per cent of margin rule. Further restrictions upon specific freight rates such as the hon. member has in mind, or in connection with freight rates generally, would require changes in legislation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-ST. PIERRE-MIQUELON-DISCUSSIONS WITH FRANCE ON DETERMINATION OF OFFSHORE RESOURCE RIGHTS
Jack Marshall: Madam Speaker, I was hoping the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Baker) would be replying to my question tonight since he comes from my own province which is so lovely. In any case, I hope to get some more response with regard to a question I directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) on November 12, having to do with bilateral discussions between Canada and certain other nations on fisheries matters following the multi-national negotiations which have taken place at various conferences on the Law of the Sea.
It is obvious that bilateral negotiations are going on between Canada and other nations such as Norway, Mexico, the United States, and now these discussions are being extended to include other nations such as Poland, Spain, and Portugal. But what bothers me is the fact that no mention is ever made of any discussions that are taking
Adjournment Debate
place between Canada and France. It is a wonder, because Canada is in the position where even if she wanted to extend unilaterally a 200 mile limit, the French nation has a trump card in that it possesses, sovereignty over St. Pierre-Miquelon, which juts out right in front of Newfoundland. It is not only in that strategic position but more definitely in front of Canada and the North American continent.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs can tell me as often as he wants that he will take my questions as notice because he doesn't have the answers at his fingertips, but he is as well aware as I was when extracting the answers from his department that there are on-going negotiations between his department and the French authorities on the establishment of equidistant boundaries between the Burin peninsula in Newfoundland and the land mass of St. Pierre-Miquelon.
The minister knows as well as I do what is going on, and it smacks of a jellyfish attitude that Canada will not exert her right to demand that a nation with the land mass of Canada should not have to resort to accepting equidistant boundaries with a land mass of such minuscule proportions, and accept the assertion of France which continues to treat Canadians as country cousins.
The islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon lie, at their closest point, 14 nautical miles south of Newfoundland, but the Canadian island known as Little Green Island lies only three miles from the French coastline. Canada's view is that a median line should be drawn between Little Green and St. Pierre, which would put the boundary one and a half miles from the French coast. The French have argued that the boundary should be mid-channel between their islands and the Burin peninsula, which would give no territorial sea at all to Green Island, which is part of Canada.
I could go on and deal with the facts I have extracted from research that I have done, but it is becoming more obvious every day that Canada with its great land mass does not have the guts to say to the French nation, which is treating us like country cousins, that it has a little blob of land close to Canada which is denying Canada's right to extend its limit to 200 miles. Indeed the French are saying that they can extend their limits as of their own right.
One of the things I have not mentioned is Canada's position as it concerns France, which should be of more importance than geography. France did not invite Canada to the economic conference of six nations, and France still owes us a bill of $11 million when they kicked us out of their NATO bases. It is now 1975 and we do not have the guts to demand payment of the bill. The only excuse the government gives is that it is waiting to see what the United States is going to do about its $100 million bill and the bill of the United Nations amounting to $380 million.
I can only deplore the position Canada is taking in allowing this little blob of land, ten miles by ten, to deny our rights to protect the mineral resources of this country, a matter so important to the province of Newfoundland and to the oil resources off the shores of Newfoundland. We are allowing this nation to hold this over our heads and demand what they can of the North American continent.

November 20, 1975
Adjournment Debate
To me the whole situation smacks of stupidity. It is ridiculous, and makes Canada look like an embarrassed little dot in the eyes of the world.


Ralph Goodale: Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to reply to the hon. member. I do so, of course, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and his parliamentary secretary. May I begin by extending to the hon. member the regret of the minister and his parliamentary secretary at being unable to be present this evening to respond directly to the hon. member's concerns.
I should like to advise the House on the status of our negotiations with France concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf in the area off the islands of St. Pierre et Miquelon. With respect to the narrow waters lying directly between the north and eastern coasts of the St. Pierre and Miquelon islands and the Newfoundland mainland, the agreement between Canada and France on their mutual fishing relations which came into force in March, 1972, provides for a delimitation line between the territorial waters of Canada and the zones submitted to the fishery jurisdiction of France. Negotiations between Canada and France were held in 1972 with respect to the delimitation of the continental shelf in the area to the south of the French islands, but these negotiations have proven inconclusive for the time being.
Following the conclusion of the Law of the Sea Conference, both sides will have more time to pursue further negotiations and hopefully arrive at a satisfactory resolution of this question.


TRANSPORT-GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO USE OF CANADIAN SHIPS TO MOVE OIL FROM ARCTIC
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, concern over the presence in Canada of Arctic vessels other than those of Canadian ownership carrying Canadian crews prompted me the other day, as it has other hon. members of the House, to question the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) with respect to assurances that the government was giving consideration to introducing legislation that would have the effect of requiring removal of natural resources from the Canadian Arctic by Canadian ships of Canadian registry.
For ten years that I can remember in this House such an undertaking has been the expressed concern of myself and, as I mentioned, of many others. In recent years we have had the assurance of ministers such as the immediate past occupant of that portfolio that such, indeed, was the desired objective. Indeed tomorrow, if all goes well, we should have before the House for second reading the new, and I suggest most welcome, maritime code legislation.
What gives rise to apprehension is the absence of any direction in this new bill dealing with the question of closing the area north of 60 degrees by way of legislative action.
The question was prompted by the efforts, for example, of Panarctic to secure from outside Canada the type of ship which would be capable of transporting liquid natural gas from the Arctic to the eastern seaboard. That is not to

mention plans that are currently on-going in the United States for the transportation of oil and other resources out of the Arctic, that portion that lies contiguous to U.S. soil, eastward through the northwest passage and then down the eastern seaboard to U.S. refineries.
Having regard to the intention in respect of the north, I could go through a long series of correspondence. As recently as the end of July the former minister of transport, after a long explanation as to why we had not done anything particular at this point in time, went on to say in a letter signed by him:
-it would be less than realistic for me to suggest that we could, at the present time, envisage a policy which banned under any circumstances, any importation whatsoever of any vessel-or technology for any vessel-destined for use in the Canadian Arctic.
That is going a little bit far and I do not think anybody would really suggest that. What we are really going after is what was suggested by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) on October 25, as reported in the Calgary Albertan. The minister was speaking to some 300 businessmen at a conference on the north. He said the following, and I will quote only the pertinent parts. He said government policy was intended to:
"-achieve more substantial" results in the effort to keep the benefit of northern development in Canada.
In particular he said he would:
Increase the purchase of equipment and services for development from Canadian firms;
Increase the "participation of firms beneficially owned and controlled" by Canadians;
Encourage resource companies "to rationalize their sourcing purchasing in Canada for their world operations."
It is more along these lines that those in the House who have some concern for development in the north rise to seek assurances and commitments from the government that it indeed will go in this direction.
No one expects Canada to be able to supply our shipping needs over night. There are interim periods of adjustment which have to be made. The provisions for the orderly issuance of permits for the orderly development of an operational capability have to be taken into consideration. We are aware of the need for co-operation, and we are aware of the need to look elsewhere from time to time for certain types of expertise. However, we appear not only to ourselves here in this Chamber, but to those throughout the world, to be ignoring the potential of the Arctic. One of our first steps must surely be to require that after a certain date, probably 1985, no resources should be removed by water from Canada's northern waters other than in Canadian-built, beneficially Canadian-owned and Canadian crewed ships. This is the least that is acceptable to Canadians.
To fail in this will be to abandon to foreign cartels the benefits of "first in" in respect of extractive industry in the north. Surely the government recognizes the position of the shipping community in this regard. Give the Canadian shipping community a reason to start planning and it will act. Here in Canada we have the technology and the expertise; we have the capacity to raise the fundings, the capacity to expand our shipyards to accommodate the required building program, and we have the capacity to produce the trained crews. In spite of what some may
November 20, 1975

think, we have a highly stable seafaring labour pool. I say "stable" in the sense that no strikes have occurred, for example, in the SIU since the departure from our shores of Hal Banks.
I will simply call upon the parliamentary secretary and the government to serve notice that it is in fact our intention to move in this direction, that it is our intention to bar foreign shipping from these northern waters. I call upon the government to prepare legislation for submission to parliament during this session, and not waste four or five more years while we lose the opportunity. I say that where we need foreign expertise and help let us get it, and where we need co-operation let us have co-operation, but whatever we do let us give notice to the world that it is our intention to protect the extractive industry for ourselves.


Ralph Goodale: Madam Speaker, recently there has been discussion in the House concerning the use of Canadian ships in the Arctic, at which time the minister replied to certain queries posed by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). In view of the interest which has been expressed, it is apparent that a somewhat more detailed response might be of value to the House.
The matter of Arctic shipping is an important area, and new policies to assist Canadian shipping were announced in the Speech from the Throne and in the statement of new transportation policies for frontier areas of Canada. The general theme has been one of the need to encourage Canadian ship operators, builders, and designers to take initiatives and develop the new technology and operating skills for future large scale developments. The most direct and meaningful development is that of the Arctic "Class 2" icebreaking cargo vessel, to be built and operated by the Canadian shipping industry with government participation and financial support.
I am pleased to be able to report that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) made an announcement on this very project just this afternoon. This particular vessel, which
Adjournment Debate
will be called the MV Arctic, a famous name in the annals of exploration of the Canadian Arctic, is a bulk carrier designed to operate in the high Arctic where two lead zinc mines are now in different stages of development. The Strathcona Mine on Strathcona Sound is due to come on stream in 1978-79. The Canadian government has an 18 per cent share in this mine. The second mine, at Little Cornwallis, so called the Polaris Project by Cominco, is presently seeking an export permit and is due to begin export in 1978-79 also.
There is no explicit policy which requires the use of Canadian vessels for movement of goods or minerals out of Canada, as there is for the coasting trade. However, in the granting of export permits both the mineral mines mentioned will be required to offer, if available, a proportion of their production to Canadian ships. It should also be noted that Bill C-61, the Maritime Code Act, which is now before the House, contains additional provisions to reserve the coasting trade for Canadian shipping.
Officials of the Ministry of Transport, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and INA are presently working on the matter of transportation and related industrial benefits associated with this element of resource development. The MV Arctic was conceived and supported by private industry, Federal Commerce and Navigation, with the co-operation of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Ministry of Transport. This support was based on the need to encourage the construction of Arctic ships which are more expensive than normal vessels, for early mineral developments, and to use this ship as a model or prototype of larger vessels for movement of oil and gas out of the Arctic to southern Canada to meet future energy requirements.
Such requirements are becoming more urgent and the consensus is that only ships can be used, at least initially, to move the oil to market. The transportation of oil from the Arctic Islands, or an offshore island in the Arctic, to the Canadian mainland is subject to the new coasting trade laws and as such the cargo will be reserved to Canadian-flag vessels.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

Friday, November 21, 1975