1983-03-21

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition), seconded by Mr. Broadbent, moved:
That the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be authorized to consider and make recommendations upon the subject-matter of Ministers and conflict of interest; and public servants and conflict of interest.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) on a point of order.


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The motion which we have before the House is precisely the same as one which was passed by the House on December 10, 1974. At that time the motion was proposed by the Government.
On the assumption that the good will and seriousness of purpose which existed in 1974 on the Government's part prevails today-that is a big assumption, but I hope it would be the case-I would like to ask the House to consider giving unanimous approval to waiving the rule which would make today's vote a vote of confidence in the Government. In that way, Mr. Speaker, if the Government is prepared to think about this motion today the way it did in 1974-in other words, have the subject matter referred to a committee- Members on the Government side as well as this side would be in a position to be able to support this motion in good conscience without having it being interpreted as a vote of confidence in the Government.
[DOT]	(1110)
As the House knows, Mr. Speaker, the normal rule for today's debate would mean that, if Government Members voted for the motion, they would be voting lack of confidence in their own Government. Now, some of us on this side might think that would be supremely wise, but we fully understand that they would not, particularly at this time, like to bring down the Government. Therefore, the suggestion I am making quite seriously is for the Government to join with us in waiving the rule which would make this a vote of confidence in the Government so they could join in this debate and support in
principle today what they supported on December 10, 1974 when they themselves brought a motion couched in identical wording before the House.
Therefore I would like to hear the views of the Government side as well as the Official Opposition as to unanimously supporting the proposal I am now making.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has some difficulty accepting this as a point of order. If, however, there is a disposition to have a motion placed before the House to make it an order of the House that such be the situation, the Chair, of course, would be at the disposal of the House. But it is hardly a point of order as it is raised now.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the House is the master of its own destiny and can do by unanimous consent what the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) has suggested.
On behalf of the Official Opposition I am pleased to advise the House that we are in accordance with the suggestion of the Leader of the NDP. We feel that the subject matter of this motion is important enough that it should be considered fully by the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and we would not want the Government to be hampered by the fact that, under Standing Order 62(9), it is in fact a non-confidence motion. We are prepared to give our consent to its going forward on the basis that it is not a non-confidence motion.
[ Translation]
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that at the very last minute, the Opposition should be bringing in a proposal that actually contradicts the one submitted last Friday. In my view, and the Chair has already said so, the motion before the House will be followed by a vote of non-confidence in the Government at the end of the day, and therefore we cannot take this debate lightly. We are prepared to debate the motion and to discuss it, and to have a vote in order to defeat this proposal presented by the Official Opposition. The situation is clear. In the course of the debate, the respective positions of each political party will be fully understood. We believe that a vote must be held, and we on the Government side have nothing to fear in voting on a non-confidence motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent at this point so I call on the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen).

March 21, 1983
Supply


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, on that same point, I take it that the Government is emphatically refusing its consent to treat this motion not as one of no confidence. Is that the Government's position?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At this point the Chair recognizes the Hon. Leader of the Opposition who is, I believe, going to introduce the debate for his side today.


Erik Nielsen: It is shameful conduct, sir, on the part of the Government. Obviously it does not want this matter to go to Committee. The motion is framed in exactly the same words as the motion put on December 10, 1974 by the then Government House leader, the Hon. Mitchell Sharp. I find it unbelievable that the Government would take this position.
[DOT] (ms)
What we are dealing with today is the question of conflict of interest guidelines as they apply to Ministers of the Crown. It would be useful to survey the history of what was done. In July, 1973 the then President of the Privy Council, who is now the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), submitted a Green Paper on conflict of interest guidelines with respect to Members and Senators. That motion was brought forward when the Deputy Prime Minister, then the Government House leader, had his responsibilities transferred to Mr. Mitchell Sharp. Through negotiations between the Government of that day and the Opposition of that day, in addition to a reference to the Committee of the Green Paper with respect to Members and Senators, a motion was put forward. Our motion today is couched in precisely the same language as the motion put forward by the Government of that day.
An amendment was moved to that motion on December 10, 1974, which attempted to place the priority of the Committee's work in the sequence of dealing with conflict of interest of Ministers and public servants before it dealt with the conflict question as it applied to Members and Senators. That Opposition amendment was defeated. The main motion, which included the words of the motion put today, was passed. The Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections reported to the House on June 10, 1975 in its fifth report. Certain action was then taken by the Government with respect to consequential legislation.
Notwithstanding that the Committee had met 59 times in four years subsequent to that report, it did not deal with the remainder of the motion. It is still outstanding, yet it was passed by the Government. Indeed, it had the unanimous support of all Parties in the House.
These are very important and critical areas of representative Government in any free democracy. As the Deputy Prime Minister said some ten years ago when he first presented his Green Paper, the prestige of Parliament relates directly to the manner in which this institution adheres to reasonable and responsible conflict of interest provisions.
There is nothing new and nothing unusual in that. It is a commonly held tradition in all civilized communities that those who hold public office should not be permitted to benefit
personally from that fact. Those in public office should make use of that position, not in any way de facto or by appearance for personal enrichment. That is the great underlying principle in any question of public morality.
I point out that the terms in which the motion is couched are precisely the same as the second half of the motion moved by the Hon. Mitchell Sharp on December 10, 1974. I will read that motion because it should be on the record so that the words can be compared. It reads as follows:
That the Green Paper entitled Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest, tabled on November 27, 1974, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections; and
That after the committee has concluded its deliberations and submitted its report on the aforementioned matter, it be authorized to consider and make recommendations upon the subject matter of ministers and conflict of interest and public servants and conflict of interest.
Anyone reading today's motion and the motion that was passed unanimously by the House on that date cannot fail to see the exactness of the comparison. In moving to refer the question of conflict of interest among various Government levels to the Committee, Mr. Sharp made several pointed references which are of interest to us today. He said:
-in the present situation, what we must establish within the Public Service, within the Parliament is actually a set of values that would bring everyone to model his conduct after a service to the public which is not what we have witnessed in the past days.
These are important considerations when the public mind is made uneasy by revelations that neither the guidelines of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) nor scruples of conscience have succeeded in establishing that set of values of which Mr. Sharp spoke.
What are those values? They are a sense of probity, a regard for moral conduct, a refusal to take advantage of public office for personal advantage. These are the parameters within which the conduct of Ministers, Members and those in high places in the Public Service must operate.
Canadians have been aware of uneasiness in recent weeks at revelations that almost an incredible laxity has crept into relations among Members of the Government and former Members of Government. It is perfectly clear that it has become common practice for former Ministers to be accorded preferred treatment by their former colleagues and former employees. It is no longer a question of one or two episodes but so many that it appears to be a normal and commonplace practice. If the Coalgate affair were the only one, and if the Ministers involved had taken the proper and honourable course and had submitted their resignations, there would perhaps be no ground, no great ground in any event, for concern on the assumption that positive steps would be taken to prevent a recurrence. This assumption is no longer possible, given the attitude-and that is what it boils down to, an attitude-of the present Government.
Since the Coalgate affair came into the open due to an interview the former Minister gave to the media, there have
March 21, 1983

been others. We have had a former Minister of Multicultural-ism denying allegations of wrongdoing in connection with a $30 million grant for a company of which he was general manager. There is also the question of two Ministers in the other place admitting that they carried on negotiations over a $2 billion British Columbia coal project with a former colleague, now deceased.
The Deputy Prime Minister and the current Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) were involved, and also aware of the involvement of a former Minister, in the Cape Breton coal proposal. Both mentioned the project, but the Minister of Mines did not mention the involvement of the former Minister. Notwithstanding that she accurately and precisely described every other participant, she conveniently, selectively, forgot Gillespie.
We have heard every type of excuse and apology, except the simple admission that in fact the Prime Minister's 1980 guidelines are simply without effect on the Members of his own Government. None of these matters was raised by this side of the House until they appeared in the press. And when we dared to question the "untouchables" over there about preferential treatment and breach of the guidelines, the old Grit smear campaign went into high gear. Anyone who attempted to secure information about the activities of Ministers and former Ministers was accused of muck-raking, was accused of character assassination, and indeed worse.
If it is muck-raking to seek information about the extracurricular and surreptitious actions of Members of the Government, then they had better amend their ways or get ready for a lot more questions if they do not. Canadians are concerned about these matters. As long as the Government refuses to come clean, we will pursue the right of Canadians to have the fullest possible information.
This Government must realize that public money is not the money of the Grit Party, and that holding public office is not a licence to traffic in an "old boy network" or a mutual handout society.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The Deputy Prime Minister told the House that the guidelines have no effect and it is all a matter of individual conscience. Surely, sir, it is not safe in a Liberal Government to rely on conscience.
The Prime Minister brought in guidelines in 1980 after six or seven years of philosophizing by him, together with the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister went so far as to bring in a Green Paper on the subject which was tabled in July, 1973. That was ten years ago and the Green Paper has simply become a "how to" book for those who want to turn public office to their own advantage.
It is interesting to recall the Prime Minister's remarks when the Green Paper was tabled. At the time he conveyed the impression that he had every intention of enforcing a policy of moral rectitude. He said on that occasion:
The Government believes that no higher standards should be demanded of anyone than of Ministers themselves.
Supply
Because of their unique duties and responsibilities, Ministers should, however, be required to conform to a series of guidelines whi:h impose added restraints, particularly in relation to pecuniary interests.
How the mighty have fallen! What a gap between the Prime Minister of 1973, when he was full of vim and vigour with a conscientious determination to see to it that the guidelines were enforced, and the Prime Minister the other day, jaded with power and the cares of office, shrugging off all responsibility. He snatched eagerly at the excuse offered when the Deputy Prime Minister said the guidelines were not law. They were only pious aphorisms, having all the force, effect and finality of Emily Post.
The Prime Minister shrugged aside his own responsibility as Leader of the Government and said boys will be boys. That is the new guideline replacing the pious set of guidelines which he brought in with such fanfare in 1980.
Prior to 1980, there were guidelines in October, 1976 when the Prime Minister wrote to the then President of the Privy Council, now Deputy Prime Minister. The letter went to all Ministers and asked compliance with the guidelines which reflected-
-the delicate balance that we have struck between our desire on the one hand to respect the right of the individual to use his or her knowledge and abilities for economic gain and personal development and, on the other hand, the requirement of protecting the right of the public to have reasonable assurance that the public interest will not suffer in the process.
Those were his words then. Somehow between 1973 and 1976, there was a marked decline in the Prime Minister's insistence on observance of the guidelines by office holders and former office holders. In 1973 he was insisting that Ministers should "be required to conform", but by 1976 the emphasis had switched to the "right of individuals to use their knowledge and abilities", even though the guidelines were attached as an appendix. Perhaps in the three intervening years the Prime Minister had learned something.
In 1980 the Prime Minister tried again. Once more he wrote to the Ministers:
The precept of fulfilling one's official responsibilities in an objective and disinterested manner lies at the very heart of our system of Government.
That is precisely what we have been pointing out.
The 1980 guidelines have been quoted frequently in the past few weeks and I shall not read them again. Suffice it to say that they provide a sort of charter of rectitude which any Minister could follow with complete confidence. It is unfortunate that more Ministers of this Government have chosen not to do so. The guidelines deal in intricate detail with the conduct of Ministers one year after leaving office and two years after leaving office. They even discussed post-employment offers.
It appears that in 1980 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) still had hopes of persuading his recalcitrant colleagues to toe the line of moral awareness. Recently it seems that he has thrown up his hands in horror at the apparent impossibility of

March 21, 1983
Supply
keeping the cattle out of the cornfield. Perhaps the Prime Minister feels that after so many glaring infractions it is a little late in the day to try to impose guidelines on Ministers who are acting as uncontrolled as March hares. Perhaps he believes the grandfather of the late Adlai Stevenson who said: "There's no use beating on the log after the coon's gone out".
Whatever the reason, the Prime Minister seems to have completely given up on his Ministers. However, that does not remove the onus, nor does it erase the right of Canadians to have the assurance that the highest standards will be followed by those in public life. If the Prime Minister feels that he cannot discipline his Ministers-we can certainly see that he might feel that way-there remains an alternative. It is to support this motion and turn the job over to a committee. What is needed is a set of clear and explicit guidelines which have clear penalties. We need guidelines with teeth. We must have guidelines which will be followed by Ministers, and failing that they must face the penalty of dismissal, because they are certainly not following the traditional course and submitting their resignation when they are caught, as any honourable Minister would do.
We hope that the Government would see its way clear to support this motion which has been devised in the public interest, and indeed devised by this Government and not by the Opposition.
At the present time, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have given the Cabinet carte blanche. There is nothing to stop any Minister or former Minister, on the very day he steps out of Government, from stepping into a lucrative job and acting as a negotiator with the very Department that he once headed. This is a situation which is repugnant to every single Canadian.
It is regrettable that the Prime Minister, the author of so many impeccable guidelines, does not seem to be able to grasp the elements of public morality. Perhaps this is natural for someone who makes use of official transportation when he goes on his holidays. Perhaps in a Cabinet in which there are Ministers who telephone judges and others who have a knack of penmanship, it is natural to expect a certain elasticity about rules of public behaviour. Perhaps this is also an explanation for the selective amnesia that occurs time after time when we attempt to question Ministers.
Canadians expect something more. They expect standards to be set and they expect standards will be followed. Since the Government seems incapable of dealing with the decay in official morality, then Parliament should take on the task. That is the purpose of this motion and it deserves support from all Members of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The rules of the House permit a period of ten minutes for questions and answers at this point. Are any Hon. Members rising to ask questions?


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the Government would have wanted to respond to the comments of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Nielsen). However, while I can understand that the Government may want to wait and answer both statements, and I have no choice but to accept that, I do not agree with that method.
I believe it is unfortunate in many ways that the subject matter for today's discussion should have to come before the House. I think it is unfortunate that the question of suitable and adequate guidelines dealing with the behaviour of Cabinet Ministers and senior public servants of any Government have not been clearly established by now. Guidelines should have been established that are subject to one interpretation and easily understood by Members of the House of Commons and the public.
Some weeks ago it became apparent that it was possible, at least under the circumstances presented to the House, to make more than one interpretation of how the present guidelines should be enforced. 1 had no difficulty with interpreting those guidelines and I believe that many other Members had no difficulty with interpreting the guidelines as well. For some reason, Members of the Cabinet seem to have some difficulty with interpreting the guidelines in a way that we believe to be quite clear and easily understood language.
We must first consider who the guidelines are designed to protect. It is clear that the guidelines are intended, in the first instance, to protect Members of Parliament from either inadvertently or unwillingly acting in a way which would bring themselves, the Government and the House of Commons into disrepute. They are also intended to protect senior public servants so that they may clearly understand the parameters within which they are supposed to operate. They are meant to describe clearly what behaviour is acceptable and what actions might infringe upon being acceptable. The guidelines are intended to protect the public and give it some confidence in the way its Government, Members of Parliament and senior public servants conduct themselves under the day-to-day rules of business that must be carried out by the Government and its agencies. The guidelines should be sufficiently understood by the public so that they can be sure that the Government, those of us involved in Parliament and those responsible for making policy decisions, are not receiving or giving special consideration in any way.
Finally, and I believe most importantly, the guidelines are intended to protect the institution of Parliament. That is the sad consequence of raising incidents that have brought into question the judgment of Cabinet Ministers, senior public servants and perhaps even the integrity that those people have displayed or failed to display in making decisions in the public interest. The very fact that the actions of Ministers of the Crown and senior public servants have been brought into question in Parliament undermines the confidence that the Canadian public has in the institution of Parliament.
It is therefore important that whatever guidelines are implemented must be clear and subject to only one interpretation. They must be guidelines that have received the approval of the entire House of Commons and are made known to
March 21, 1983

everyone in the Public Service. I suggest that we must write guidelines that apply to every Member of Parliament both today and in the future. The guidelines must clearly stipulate what is acceptable or unacceptable behaviour so that any person seeking a seat in Parliament can decide whether they wish to do so. They must be clear so that every person in the Public Service knows that their affairs must be arranged and their conduct conducted in such a way as never to allow what they have done to be drawn into question. Then any people who aspire to high, senior positions within the Public Service will know, as they work their way up the ladder, what will be expected of them in the way they conduct their business if, as and when they reach or achieve such high office.
Therefore, the guidelines cannot simply be guidelines of the Prime Minister of the day, applying only to that particular Government, but must surely be those which apply to every single Member of Parliament. No matter which Government it is, whether it be Liberal, Conservative or NDP, the same guidelines should continue to apply and should be constant, easily understood, unequivocal, and should set out what we, the Members of Parliament, on behalf of our constituents, believe should be the way Governments should be conducted.
The question then arises, should these guidelines be a matter of law, subject to the interpretation of the courts, or should they be an in-house operation of the Parliament of Canada? 1 suggest, in the first instance, that the guidelines should not be a matter of law-and this is a personal view-but, rather, should be ones determined by the Committee on Privileges and Elections and approved by the House of Commons, and should then become part of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. They should be enforced by the House of Commons and made subject to the same provisions as are other Standing Orders.
I suggest that to put them into a court system would diffuse their value and would take the behaviour of Members, Cabinet Ministers and senior public servants out of the realm of Parliament itself. They would then become interpretated by courts across the land from time to time and would, in many ways, prove to be the undermining of Parliament.
I therefore suggest that the other course of action is the one which should be followed, and that we should accept the view that the guidelines which affect Members of Parliament who become Cabinet Ministers or members of the public who rise to high levels in the Public Service should be those established by the House of Commons, not guidelines established only by the Cabinet for its own purposes at the time, should be subject to change and interpretation by the House of Commons only, and therefore subject to enforcement by the House of Commons.
I suggest to Your Honour that if we were to accept the suggestion as it is contained in the motion today, and if we were to accept the proposal put forward by the Leader of this Party that this should not be a matter of confidence today, without passing any comment on things which have happened in the past, we could agree that the conflict which arose over
Supply
the interpretation of the guidelines in weeks gone by, though it may have motivated the decision to seek this kind of parliamentary review, is not the reason, in itself, for going ahead with this parliamentary review.
It is in the best interests of everyone in the House of Commons that these guidelines be carefully considered as to their adequacy and written by the Members of this House who sit on the Committee on Privileges and Elections, referred back to the House of Commons for approval at some point as to their adequacy, and then made part of the Standing Orders of the House.
How would the guidelines be enforced? I suggest that the question of enforcement is one which is raised very frequently, yet I think it is a bit of a red herring. Someone said to me during the debate a couple of weeks ago on what has become known as the Coalgate affair that it would be very difficult to enforce guidelines on former Cabinet Ministers. That is not so. The enforcement of guidelines on former Cabinet Ministers rests with existing Cabinet Ministers and senior public servants.


Erik Nielsen: With the Prime Minister.


Ian Deans: If the guideline stipulates that a former member of Cabinet may not do something, whatever it is, that a person who has formerly sat in a Cabinet may not undertake to do a certain act, the enforcement of that guideline rests, in the first instance, with the individual himself or herself. However, in actual fact it rests with the current Cabinet Minister who would be required to pass judgment on the matter, or with the senior public servant who, having knowledge of the guidelines, would recognize that the former Cabinet Minister was in breach of the guidelines, perhaps inadvertently, and should bring to that former Cabinet Minister's attention the fact that whatever he or she is seeking cannot be sought at this time because he or she is in violation, or may appear to be in violation, of the guidelines.
As far as the question involving enforcement for members of the current Cabinet or for senior public servant, the answer is quite simple. If there is a clear breach, the responsibility then rests with the individual, in the first instance, to recognize the breach, having studied the guidelines to familiarize himself or herself with them, and to take the appropriate course of action, which has historically been to resign portfolio responsibility. That is in the case of the Cabinet. Failing the resignation of the Minister, if the question has been raised and proven to be true, it then becomes the responsibility of the Prime Minister to insist that that course of action be followed.
In the case of senior public servants, if they fail to abide by the guidelines, then their jobs are certainly in jeopardy. The responsibility rests with the Minister in charge of that particular Ministry, or with the Prime Minister, to replace such individuals whose actions have proven to be unacceptable to the House of Commons as set out in the guidelines.
I would like to suggest, rather than having the public continue to feel as it does, that there is, in fact, an old boy

March 21, 1983
Supply
network and access to Government by those who are the old, trusted and true friends of the Government in office, and that the actions of the Government are not necessarily conducted within the principles established for the maintenance of the highest level of confidence possible in the Parliament of Canada; that the Government might reconsider the position it took earlier this morning, the position in which it finds itself with regard to today's vote.
I do not think anyone in the House believes that the current guidelines are adequate. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has indicated that he is considering a review. I do not think anyone in the public sector believes that even if they are adequate, they are being followed rigorously enough. I do not think anyone in the House or outside the House believes that the guidelines have sufficient teeth in them for enforcement purposes. I do not believe that anyone in the public, or in the House of Commons for that matter, believes that the final decision rests with the conscience of the person who happens to have had his or her actions questioned.
If we do not believe those things, and I think that fair-minded people all across the country will agree with me that it is not unreasonable to not believe those things, there can be no time like the present for a break with the past. In order to achieve that confidence that we all think is so absolutely necessary, in order to elevate the level of the House of Commons in the minds of the public of Canada and raise the public opinion of Parliament now and in the future, I suggest that the Government allow this matter to be sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, not to review and rehash old battles-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: I find Cabinet Ministers and their supporters snickering. It is interesting how they can disregard all of the vital and genuine concerns because they are afraid to face the actions of the past. I can assure them on behalf of this Party that there will be no rehashing. We are talking about looking at guidelines that will prove to be sustaining, prove to be adequate, which will provide the protection so necessary for the people who work for the public of Canada, and at the same time provide for the protection of the public of Canada from actions taken by those in authority which may, and I suspect probably could be, interpreted to have been actions that may in the future be inappropriate actions.
It is not the preserve of this or any other Prime Minister to set guidelines. It is not the preserve of the Government of the day to set out guidelines that it happens to feel suits its particular mould or bent. It is to preserve of Parliament to establish guidelines that protect all of us from the actions of one or more of us. Every single Member of Parliament is drawn into disrepute when one Member is drawn into disrepute. The
public attitude toward Parliament is diminished and undermined when a Member does something, or is perceived to have done something, that is considered to be an inappropriate act.
It is our collective responsibility to write and to institute guidelines for politicians and for senior public servants. It cannot be done in the House of Commons because it is too large and too difficult, it would be impossible. However, it can, should and must be done in a committee. For that reason we in this Party believe that this action taken by the Official Opposition is an action long overdue.


Erik Nielsen: It is their motion.


Ian Deans: As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) says, it is entirely consistent, word for word, with a motion put down by a Cabinet Minister in 1974 and approved by Parliament. It is an action that is consistent with elevating the status of Parliament to a level that it should enjoy but has not enjoyed for some time. It is an action that would relieve the Government of the responsibility of passing judgment upon itself and its colleagues. It is an action that would make it unnecessary for the Prime Minister of a Liberal, Conservative or NDP Government to rise to defend Cabinet Ministers on occasions when their actions are being questioned. It is an action that would make the House of Commons responsible to Members, to the public, and would give the public some confidence in the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The rules of the House provide for a period of questions and answers at this point. Are there any Members rising to ask questions?


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Hon. Member who just finished speaking. What struck me in his comments was his obvious concern for preserving this parliamentary institution and his desire to find ways of increasing the confidence of Canadians in their elected representatives and their confidence in our parliamentary institutions. In this respect, I think he is entirely correct, and I wish to congratulate him on his remarks which were, in a way, quite different from the initial comments made by the Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition, the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who made a number of gratuitous remarks without really getting to the bottom of the problem, which is the confidence of Canadians in people who are in public life.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member how he intends to increase the confidence of the public in our parliamentary institutions, when Members of this House so often abuse their parliamentary immunity. Should we not look for new ways of preventing members from taking such undue advantage? Very often, unwarranted and unfounded accusations are made in the House by Members who lack the mental courage to repeat them outside this House and use Parliament and their parliamentary immunity to tarnish reputations by spouting halftruths and falsehoods. I wonder whether the Hon. Member has any suggestions for rules that might be established to change
March 21, 1983

that principle of absolute parliamentary immunity which is so convenient for some Members who are fond of tarnishing reputations.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to be drawn into a debate on this point, but I say to the Minister that it is a question that has not escaped my concern. The question of parliamentary immunity is one that I have been interested in for the better part of the last 16 years, on occasion having seen the immunity being used in what I personally felt was an improper way, I must confess not only by members of the Opposition. I sense that is also done by Members in Government from time to time. It is a misunderstanding in some ways of how immunity was intended to be used.
Immunity was necessary in the first instance and continues to be necessary in order to allow Members of Parliament freely to raise questions that are of public concern without having to go through the court system, Parliament, of course, being the highest court in the land. The immunity that is afforded Members of Parliament enables them to raise questions in this highest court, which is not at all like the immunity afforded in other courts.
There is a certain requirement on the part of everyone to exercise judgment and care, as I have always done and as most Members do. If the Minister is suggesting that perhaps the question of immunity ought to be considered, if the Government is prepared to refer the question of guidelines to the appropriate committee for consideration, and if the Government cares to make a motion that the question of immunity be considered in committee, I will be only too happy not only to second it but to guarantee the support of this caucus.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in disagreement with the two previous speakers and I have some difficulty understanding their position.


Ian Deans: You have difficulty understanding my position?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Yes, and I will outline for the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) my concern in due course. First of all, it does appear to me to be unusual, or the threshing of old straw, for the Opposition to spend yet another day on this so-called issue at a time when there are many serious problems with our economy and there are many matters of substance with regard to public issues of the day which could well be discussed. I believe the Opposition are going to be hard-pressed to mount an interesting debate on the subject throughout the day in view of the amount of publicity which it has already been given.
The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) in his opening remarks said that the Government's position was shameful and unbelievable, that this morning we did not immediately go through some sort of contortion in order to make a non-confidence vote into something else and to have this matter go, as he wishes, to committee. I would like to say
Supply
that it is a very strange piece of thinking indeed, Mr. Speaker, when on Friday they move a non-confidence vote on this subject, place it properly, follow the procedure for a nonconfidence vote which can bring down the Government if the Government is defeated and cause an election in the land, and then on Monday morning at eleven o'clock they suddenly say; "Well, we really did not mean what we did and we are now prepared to do something which would make this a different sort of debate, if the Government will agree". Then when the Government does not immediately do handsprings, it is criticized for its shameful and outrageous behaviour.


Erik Nielsen: Squirm on it.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I do not find much squirming in that. As for the Leader of the Opposition, it has been said that all the gall has been divided into three parts, and I believe he has all three parts when he takes that sort of position.
I would like to say something about guidelines. I believe what we so often see is the problem in public life of the difference between the position which people take when they are the "outs" and when they are the "ins". Today we have that classic example of a split in points of view between those who are on the outside of Government at the moment and those who are on the inside. I believe it is noteworthy that during the time the Conservatives were the Government in Canada, they did not take such a matter to a committee or did not legislate on this particular subject.


Erik Nielsen: There are stiffer guidelines, too.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I believe it is also of note that in democratic Governments in this country, in the Provinces as well as in the federal Government, guidelines where they exist vary greatly. Guidelines in national Governments usually provide for the disclosure of assets. They usually provide a ban on the buying and selling of stocks which are publicly traded, and they usually deal with the necessity of providing for the establishment by Ministers who have ongoing business investments of blind trusts which are beyond the arm's length of Ministers. Guidelines also usually provide for the declaration of receipt of gifts or benefits over a certain value.
If one asks why guidelines have traditionally existed, they will be told they are not only for protection against misuse of office, but also for the so-called "Caesar's wife" rule of virtue not only existing, but appearing to exist. When I listened to the words of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, I was not quite sure what he was suggesting when he said "all Members of this House". He may have been returning to another interesting question, that is, whether there should be something in the way of public disclosure guidelines for all Members of Parliament and not just for Cabinet Ministers. Every Member of Parliament in this country, whether a Cabinet Minister or not, is in a special position in relation to Government, and that includes Opposition Members as well as Government Members. I believe that is a subject for people to consider.

March 21, 1983
Supply
Aside from the question of the rules for Ministers of the day, Mr. Speaker, in various Governments, there are those rules for former Ministers. I believe there is an important point to be made in relation to the question of former Ministers. The system as it exists in any jurisdiction of which I am cognizant at the present time provides that a breach of any guidelines which exist, a breach of proper use of ministerial authority, can be remedied by the ultimate penalty, if you like, of banishment from Cabinet. That can be provided by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or, in the case of the Provinces, by the Premier. There is no way in which this sort of punishment, obviously, can be carried out against a former Minister because he is no longer in the Cabinet. I believe that guidelines for former Ministers, as a consequence, must be dealt with in a somewhat different way.
I would like to say in this regard that when we are setting guidelines, it is very important that we take the long look at what is in the interest of the country and what is in the interest of public life. During the time that I was a provincial Premier and the Leader of a Party, I was aware of the problem of attracting business people into Government. I believe that other active Members of the Parties represented here have also been aware of this problem. Dissociation from their profession or business carries financial penalties for people who come into public life long after they become Ministers or Members of Parliament. Nevertheless they make a free decision to come here for the honour and satisfaction of public service, and they certainly should be prepared to make that sacrifice. They realize when they leave their business or profession to come here that they are not only leaving their business in the hands of someone who is perhaps not as dedicated and experienced and that their income will not be as good during the intervening years, but they also realize that when they go back to their business or profession they will have to rebuild and less income will be generated for years to come. But people do make that sacrifice for public service, and I believe that is very good.
However, after they have ceased to be Ministers and have left this place, to ask them to have fewer rights than any other citizen of the country to deal with Government is something else. I believe that is something which requires a great deal of consideration. I suggest that that is contemplated by the guidelines which presently exist.
1 remind Hon. Members that the guidelines do not, and should not, say that former Ministers cannot deal with Government. The guidelines say specifically that "in any official dealings with former office holders, Ministers must ensure that they do not provide grounds, or the appearance of grounds, for allegations of improper influence". In today's complicated world, with Government into so many things as it is, there are few businesses which people can return to where there will not be some occasion for that company for which they work to be involved with Government.
Some Hon. Members who have spoken here in recent weeks suggest that former Ministers become non-persons, that they not have the ability to work for a company which has any connection with Government at all. I believe what is important is that Ministers of the day, senior civil servants of the day and
Government in general treat all citizens the same, that there not be special privilege for anyone. 1 believe that is what Governments in this country have strived to do. I consider it a shame that elected representatives cannot deal with an issue like this, which over the years affects all sides because Governments come and go, in a non-partisan way. But the hard, cruel facts are that they cannot.


Mr. Huntington:: Send it to committee.


Gerald Augustine Regan: A committee is made up of Members of this House, elected politicians. Debates in this House in past weeks have shown that Members cannot put aside partisanship to try to deal with this issue. The temptation to play politics is simply too great. For instance, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition again this morning came back to what he calls Coalgate, yet he has not been able to show, nor has anyone else, that there was one ounce of special treatment for Mr. Gillespie on this project that he and Premier Buchanan brought to the federal Government for a grant under an existing program which was available to any citizen.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain suggests that the guidelines and how a person complies with them should be made subject to the authority of Parliament. This, in my opinion, confuses the role of Parliament and that of the Government answering to Parliament. It seems to me that the voice of faction is seldom hushed here. If the House ruled on who is going to remain in Cabinet or who was in breach, or allegedly in breach, of guidelines, there would be-


Erik Nielsen: They would all be gone.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -a constant flood of partisan charges. Obviously it is not in the nature of Opposition Members to think that a Minister of the day, whichever side happens to be here at a particular time, is as efficient and as exact in carrying out his duties as perhaps the Minister himself and the public would think. There is a vested interest in the Opposition obviously trying to become the Government and therefore trying to make the Government look bad. So I think when the Hon. Member suggests that guidelines be part of the Standing Orders of the House, that is not being realistic in relating the circumstances in which we would have the best impartial judgment on how these things should operate.
Surely the best answer is the parliamentary system we have. The Prime Minister of the day sets his guidelines for Ministers, and if his Ministers do not comply then he dismisses them. Remember this, that if the Prime Minister is found to be not doing that well in the judgment of the public, or if the Ministers are not complying, then it is the role of the Opposition to bring forward charges, as they have, and try to establish the merit of those charges. Indeed, if they have merit then the judgment is made on the Prime Minister and those Ministers by the electorate in the next election. But quite aside from the argument whether there is merit in what the Ministers are doing or not, let us not ruin the parliamentary system by trying
March 21, 1983

to make it into something that it is not and make it even more partisan than it is.


Miss MacDonald:: What have you done over the years?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, the speech that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition gave this morning is again proof positive that the House or a committee thereof is not the right forum for determining what the guidelines should be. In any event, it is, as we have said, a non-confidence motion and it is impossible for the Government to vote for it without a defeat. I suggest that it is a Government Leader's prerogative-the Prime Minister, Premier or whatever-with regard to the people he appoints, Ministers or senior civil servants, to decide what those conditions should be and to answer to the public as to how they are dealt with.
The Prime Minister is interested at all times in seeing that the guidelines are improved. However, he is dismayed that former Ministers are supposed to become non-persons. Government is so complex today that it is very difficult for a former Minister to be in the position of never having any dealings with Government. Indeed, often there is a tendency for people, if they have spent many years in a particular line of work, either criticizing in Opposition or administering in Government, to continue in the area in which they have achieved expertise when they go back to private life. Governments, Conservative, NDP and Liberal, have often appointed former Ministers to positions where they could continue to use the experience and expertise they have gained. I do not find that unusual. It is a way of avoiding wastefulness. If the person is not worthy of it, then again there will be public criticism.
I think the sort of publicity which has been given to this issue, Mr. Speaker, is not going to make it easier to attract people to public life. The guidelines have been interpreted and misconstrued. It may be that they need to be clarified, but I think the important thing is that the guidelines as they presently exist provide that you must withdraw from the profession or business that you are in, that you must give up directorships, that you cannot manage assets and you cannot be active in unions or accept gifts over a certain amount without a public declaration. The Ministers of this Government have complied with those requirements. They have established blind trusts. They have dissociated themselves from the professions.
I think the important question is whether those guidelines are exactly the ones that should or should not exist. I think a consideration for any Prime Minister is whether there are some guidelines that do not exist but should and then perhaps the Members should suggest what they are.


Erik Nielsen: In committee.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I think they have the opportunity to make that suggestion at any time.
In the few moments I have left I want to say that in my 20 years of public service I have seen many, many people of different Parties in elected positions who, at the end of their years in public life, are poorer financially as a consequence of their years of public service. I have been hard pressed to find
Supply
someone who is richer. If their progress in their own profession had paralleled the success they had in public life-and I could use examples from both sides of this House-then they obviously at the time of their death would have left a great deal more than was otherwise the case.
I believe it is unfortunate that again and again Hon. Members opposite come back to the so-called Gillespie question without bringing forward any evidence. Along the lines of what I outlined before, I presume the Prime Minister would look at a question of that type in this way. In determining whether there was any merit to the charges he would say this: Did others consider the project good or was it just to the advantage of one person? Was it competing against other projects? The fact that Nova and Gulf put big money into that project, the fact that the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia backed it very strongly, that it was good enough for Mr. Buchanan, would I think be one test.
A second test would be whether it was done secretly. No, it was not. Indeed, there was a public press conference three years ago. Would the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mac-Eachen) and other people involved have had Mr. Gillespie participate in a televised press conference in Port Hawkesbury, or would they have had someone from Nova or Gulf up front and him in the background if there was anything wrong with the situation?


Ian Deans: What has this got to do with it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: It has to do with something the Leader of the Opposition dealt with in his remarks. So I suggest that not only was there no merit in that charge or the other matters brought up, but one has to ask: Why was it not brought up three years ago? Why now? Why not then?
I suggest again that the New Democratic Party is caught up in this matter, unfortunately for its members. The matter is brought up now because the Conservatives are leaderless. They are in the process of holding a convention and need a diversion.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Government has been leaderless for years.


Gerald Augustine Regan: It is important for them to try to undermine the integrity of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), who is doing such an outstanding job, because they are fearful of the good budget he is going to bring forth. They beat the subject to death because they have no other issues. I hope they will consider some of the thoughts I have given them this morning so as not to harm further the attractiveness of public life to the people that we need to attract.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have one question for the Minister. By unanimous consent, the House can do anything. The Leader of the New Democratic Party has requested unanimous consent to suspend Standing Order 62(9) which, of course, is the non-confidence nature of the vote. We have given

March 21, 1983
Supply
that consent. If consent were given by the Government, the matter could be voted on by Government Members secure in the knowledge that they would not be voting the Government out of office.
Why is there this great reluctance on the part of the Government to provide that consent to the suspension of the Standing Order so as to enable its Members to vote as they please in support of this motion?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I want to say two or three things to the Hon. Member in answer to his question. If he listened to my remarks he heard me say that I do not think it is a question of what the guidelines should be. That can best be determined by people who have the day by day, partisan involvement that we all have here in this House. I think it is the responsibility of whoever is the Leader of the Government of the day. If Parliament does not like the way he carries things out, it can defeat him.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is interjecting and criticizing the parliamentary system. If he has a question I will deal with it later but I should like to deal with the Leader of the Opposition's question now.
First of all, in my view a committee is not the proper place for this matter to be considered, so my inclination is against the motion per se. Second, this is an opposition day and because the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, he was in the House at eleven o'clock this morning and not away on other business. Otherwise he might not have been here. I suggest he may want to take the question up with the House Leader at three o'clock this afternoon. It could be more definitively dealt with at that time as our House Leader is not here at the moment. If he has a supplementary question perhaps he could put it at that time.
I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition, however, why he did not give notice of this question on Friday when it was established that this matter would be coming forward today as a non-confidence motion. Why did he not say something like, "Look, we are putting this down as a non-confidence motion but we would really like it not to be a nonconfidence motion"?


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Speaker, 1 was almost convinced that the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) was to be believed when he suggested earlier that it would be up to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to decide this because the rest of us were too political. I was almost convinced but not quite. Then when I heard him respond to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen), I became even more concerned about what he was saying. He suggested that really the Prime Minister was the best person to make the judgment because he was not political, that playing politics is a disease that is only caught by Members of the Opposition, and further, that while the public has an opportunity to judge the Prime Minister every four years or every election-


Erik Nielsen: They are the Ajax knights.


Mark Willson Rose: -our behaviour is not equally judged every four years. That is an interesting line of argument.
I think the Minister is not only a Minister of the Crown but is also something of a novelist or story teller, a bon vivant and all the rest. The inclination to play politics is not confined to Members on this side. The determination of what is a reasonable allegation or a prima facie case of conflict of interest and what is a smear is frequently divided by a very thin line. Most of the time Members on this side have to go on a fishing expedition. We do not have access to information, we are denied documents, and then the Government and the Prime Minister close ranks. Mum's the word. So that is the reason we are concerned. When something like this comes up I think, given the proper motion, that the Committee should consider it automatically and be given the relevant documents.
If these things can be ventilated, and the Opposition is inclined to raise doubts in the committee, so will Members of the Government-which has the vast majority of its Members on Committees-be inclined to put the best possible light on it.
In the Coalgate affair, when we questioned the Minister of Finance we did not question his honesty at all. What we questioned was his judgment. What he did, in our view, was a really dumb thing. It was blown out of proportion, in my view-and I have great respect for the Minister-because the Government closed ranks to the obvious set of facts and said there was nothing wrong at all. The difficulty here-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The difficulty of the Chair at this point is trying to apportion the time to the various Members who are seeking the floor. Does the Minister care to reply to the question?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) that I had never hoped to achieve such heights as to convince him. So when he told me that I came very close to it, I was pleased.
I would say again to the Hon. Member that the temptation to play politics is a human element, particularly for people involved in politics. I have never been able to find a Member of any political Party without human weakness-not even the NDP.
When the Hon. Member says that the House should decide whether there has been a breach of the guidelines by a Minister, is he saying that Ministers would be dismissed by a decision of the House rather than by a decision of the Prime Minister? That is the logic that flows from what he says. It goes to the heart of the system. The Prime Minister must make those decisions because he appoints or dismisses Cabinet Ministers. He must answer to the House and eventually to the electorate about whether he does it well.
The Hon. Member spoke of the Minister of Finance with affection. Let him keep in mind that not one iota of evidence has been placed before the House to suggest that Mr. Gillespie and those associated with him, including the Premier of Nova
March 21, 1983

Scotia, received anything that was not available to any member of the public who applied for a common public program.


Ian Deans: That is not true.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Again, the difficulty of the Chair is to try to apportion time. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is seeking the floor.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a short question to the Minister. In the course of his remarks he suggested that it is completely inappropriate for a committee of the House to consider the question of rules or guidelines relating to conflict of interest for Ministers or public servants. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, the words of this motion are the words of a motion that was previously accepted unanimously by the House. Indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), speaking with respect to conflict of interest guidelines for Ministers, said: "That is why the Government has placed its proposals related to Members of Parliament and Senators before the House for its consideration. We would hope that after a study of the problem in Committee and after having received comments from Hon. Members, an Independence of Parliament Act will be introduced and passed in this House. The announcement of the Government's policy is, then, a first step only."
If it was all right in 1974 for Members of Parliament to consider this matter, now that we know the Prime Minister says there is no sanction against former office holders and that that is a weakness in the conflict of interest guidelines, why is it wrong for Members of Parliament to consider conflict of interest guidelines for Ministers and former office holders now? What does the Government have to hide? Why does it fight this with all its vigour as the majority in the House of Commons?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quoting situations here in 1974 under different circumstances. That was following a Green Paper which was referred for consideration. That is a very different matter.
This is the second day we have spent on the matter, plus endless questions and mini-debates in the House all arising out of smear efforts in relation to Mr. Gillespie's legitimate business dealings with the Government. I reiterate that of course Hon. Members of the House should be able to give their opinions. They will do so in this debate in relation to what they think the guidelines should be, what should be included and how they should be enforced. Of course they will do that; of course they are doing it in the debate.
I do not happen to think that guidelines should be established by a Committee of the House or by the House. I think they must be established by whoever is Prime Minister of the day from time to time, that they must be to his satisfaction, and that he must answer to the House and the electorate for them.
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period of questions and answers has expired. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) on debate.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I may say with a degree of sadness that nothing could more clearly indicate the Government's complete lack of comprehension of what this issue is all about than the remarks and comments made by the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan). He does not seem to grasp what the debate before us today is about. He said that he had difficulty understanding our position. He talked merely of it being a question of ins and outs. He said we should be discussing other issues. I say to that Minister and to every other Minister sitting on the Liberal benches that there is no greater issue before the country than that Canadians have trust and confidence in their parliamentary institutions. This is what the debate is about today.
On February 24, 1983, the combined Opposition, the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, failed in its motion to censure the Government concerning the same events which have precipitated the debate today. We failed not because of the efforts of the Opposition, but because the Government had too much in the way of a majority and too little in the way of parliamentary integrity.
It may be that today's motion will also fail. If the Government was not persuaded as to its moral responsibility on February 24 by the clear and incontrovertible proof that was offered concerning the abuses of the conflict of interest guidelines, then I do not imagine it will be compelled by arguments today. After all, the Government has no less of a majority today than it did then and I would argue that it has no more integrity than it did then.
But let us be under no illusion. The failure today, if such it be, will not be the failure of an Opposition motion. It will be the failure of the Government of Canada to live up to the basic tenets of parliamentary democracy. Indeed, it will be seen as a failure of the whole Parliament of Canada to conduct itself by the same standards and code of morality which it seeks daily to impose upon its citizens through the process of formulating, revising and passing the laws of the country.
As has been pointed out repeatedly by Ministers over the past number of weeks, the guidelines which lie at the heart of this debate are to them just that-merely guidelines; they are not law, they are not binding. Indeed, by the cynical actions of the Ministers and their votes, they give proof positive to the view that the guidelines have no moral authority.
The present guidelines have been in effect for several years now. It was thought that Cabinet Ministers understood them, that they grasped the impact of their message. Now these same Ministers suddenly stand before us and say that they find the language in which the guidelines are couched to be confusing. In recent days the House has been treated to a redefinition and an ongoing change of meaning of many words, words which we thought were understood, words like "lobby",

March 21, 1983
Supply
"persuasion" and "influence". Those of us on this side of the Elouse have never experienced difficulty understanding the guidelines, neither their language nor the moral authority and responsibility attached to them. They are very simple, they are very clear. They have been read time and time again in the House. Yet obviously the guidelines are not clear to the Government, because they were not followed when they should have been put into effect. They are not clear because when they were broken, as indeed broken they were, those responsible refused to shoulder their responsibility. The guidelines as such are simply not being adhered to, so obviously they must be reviewed.
The scope seized by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues to misinterpret or to distort the meaning of the guidelines at their convenience dictates that they must be rewritten in language which cannot be mistaken. It must be determined once and for all if there is such a thing as ministerial accountability and in what circumstances it should apply. It is equally obvious, to those of us on this side of the House at least, that this process of review, of consideration and recommendation, can only take place under conditions of allParty scrutiny.
When the Coalgate incident first came to our attention, we were prepared to see the Government conduct its own investigation in accordance with its guidelines and to act honourably on its conclusions. This as we know was asking the impossible. Thus we requested that the Assistant Deputy Registrar-General, the official responsible under the guidelines, be authorized to conduct the investigation. That, too, the Government rejected.
Since then we have had hints from the Prime Minister that he might initiate some sort of review of the guidelines. Given the abysmal record of the Prime Minister's sensitivity to this very fundamental issue, that method of proceeding is simply not acceptable except, of course, to some Liberal apologists; but this escapist method is certainly not acceptable to Members of the Opposition. Even more important, it is not acceptable to the majority of Canadians.
The task before us is not to muddy the waters further, as would happen if we allowed the Prime Minister himself to review the guidelines. Rather, our task is to restore the principles of integrity and accountability to our political process, not to undermine them further as the Prime Minister would do. Therefore, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections must be given the authority to conduct any review of ministerial and Public Service guidelines on conflicts of interest. In its deliberations, the Committee must reconfirm not only to Members of this House but, more importantly, to the people of Canada that the Government of Canada is not a law unto itself, that the Government shall be held no less accountable today for its actions and the actions of its Members than has been the tradition in the past.
There is a doubt in our nation today, a deep and persistent doubt, doubt in our Government, doubt in our leaders, doubt in our institutions, doubt even in our system of parliamentary
democracy and in its ability to meet the demands of a rapidly changing society. These doubts persist and grow precisely because of incidents such as Coalgate, precisely because Ministers do not accept their responsibilities, especially those Cabinet Ministers whose authority, such as that of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), makes it doubly imperative that no taint of even moral negligence should attach to them. These doubts persist and grow because we, the Members of the House of Commons, are seen to be impotent to compel Ministers and senior civil servants to act otherwise. It comes down to a question of trust, the trust between those who govern and those who are governed, the very pillar upon which Parliament is built. Today that trust stands in jeopardy.
How can the people of Canada believe anything if they see those guidelines account for so little when they are put to the test, when they are called upon to come into play and are ignored? How can the people of Canada believe their Government rules in the best interests of the whole nation when time after time we see example after example of gross misconduct, whether it is a pay-off for past political debts with the chairmanship of a Crown Corporation or the appointment of a personal friend to a plum contract or to a seat in the Senate; whether it is up front in the open or a backroom deal between the backroom boys who really pull the strings of power and patronage in this Government.
These are all abuses which strike at the very heart of the credibility and trust from which this or any other Government draws its moral authority to govern. These are all abuses, as is every broken promise that this Government has left in its wake, of which there are so many. Without some sense of public morality, some understanding of the traditions of parliamentary accountability and collective responsibility, without some code of personal honour, how can any individual or group of individuals hope for very long to exert moral authority over their offices? How can there not be cynicism among the Canadian people when they see the rules by which they must conduct their lives flaunted by those who stand before them as models of probity and integrity? If you think that worries me, sir, you are absolutely right, it does. It should worry all of us because it does make a difference. These things matter.
I have always believed that there is a contract between those who govern and those who are governed. That contract is not hammered out in some lengthy bargaining session or in closed door sessions. It is a contract openly and freely arrived at based on mutual trust and respect.
The people of Canada fulfil their part of the contract with their Government. They pay their taxes. They obey the laws as is demanded of them. They serve when they are called upon, as is their duty. If they do not do these things, then they pay the penalty imposed upon them.
But where is our federal Government's duty? Does it not, too, have its obligations to honour the promises it makes, to govern all of its subjects equally and fairly, without prejudice or favour; to obey-no less than its citizens-the laws of the land and the rules it has itself established? Does it not have an
March 21, 1983

even greater obligation to fulfil these duties simply because it is the Government? Of course it does.
We look to Government for leadership. We look to it for integrity. We look to it, not to be as good as the people it serves, but better. We expect Government to set an example. In trusting it to do these things, we grant it authority over us.
This Government, however, has failed. It has failed to lead, be it by example or otherwise. Its integrity has been as scattered to the winds as are its promises. It has broken the trust, the trust that has to exist between the people and the Government.
To those of us on this side of the House, this comes as nothing new. To much of the Canadian public it is nothing new. Public confidence in our parliamentary institutions has been steadily eroding for years. There is an increasing skepticism about our ability to determine and influence the course of events. Politics itself is increasingly the object of scorn and suspicion. It matters little who or what it is to blame for this lack of confidence, this lack of credibility. But we and our parliamentary democracy are all damaged by it, regardless of our Parties and political persuasions.
In the eyes of the general public we are all tarred with the same brush. The public sees the lobbying and the special interests at work. They read of the huge sums of money circulated around Parliament Hill in favour of this or that proposal. They do not stop to question whether such activity is necessary, whether it is legal or whether all Members of Parliament are susceptible to the arguments and favours of such interests. The public see us all as inhabitants of the same honey pot and they suspect us all of having sticky fingers. The public see the almost incestuous relationship between our leading financial, industrial and commercial institutions and former Members of the Government, and they cannot but question the independence of Government.
People see the special quirks and privileges, the appointments of commissioners at $800 a day, the special consultant fees, the advisory boards, the Crown Corporations whose directorships read like a who's who of past and present Ministers and their public servants. They hear such largesse justified by the Prime Minister as "just making a living". When 1.5 million Canadians and their families have to make a living on their Unemployment Insurance benefits and they hear comments like that coming from the Prime Minister of their country, how can there not be some questioning of the values of Government today? To much of the Canadian public, Parliament has become an extravagant irrelevance. It is a circus show acting out its own fantasy in a make-believe world where neither money nor morality seem very real any more.
I need hardly tell Members of Parliament how dangerous such a perception can be. If our society cannot believe in its own political institutions and will not accept their moral authority, we are well on the road to social anarchy. It is incumbent upon all of us, therefore, to act in a way that will
Supply
restore faith in our political process. It is essential above all that the credibility of Parliament be strengthened and upheld.
Edmund Burke wrote that Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human want. As the creation of all too imperfect man, Government itself cannot fail to fall short of perfection. It is a contrivance, this artificial creation to which we entrust dominion and authority over our lives.
But just as we must never forget the ultimate objective, this contrivance called Government to provide for human want, so too must we never cease in our efforts to make it as perfect as is humanly possible. It must strive to represent what is best of that human wisdom. We must prove to ourselves and to the Canadian public that we still do have the ability to police ourselves; that we accept to place ourselves within the same confines of law and public morality as we expect of our citizens.
I remind Members of the Government opposite of the oath they took upon accepting office. It is the Privy Council oath. It is not a mere formality, an anachronism or a trivial touch of pomp and circumstance. It is a living and binding code that its Members swear to uphold, not just while they are in office but throughout their lives.
I remind all Members of the House of the oath they took upon becoming Members. We are sworn to uphold the traditions and the integrity of Parliament. We are sworn to uphold the laws of Canada, the unwritten moral laws no less than those inscribed upon the statute books. Our collective authority to govern and legislate the laws of Canada, our collective authority as Members of the Parliament of Canada, must be reaffirmed if we are to meet what the Canadian public is demanding of us.
By granting to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections the right to consider and make recommendations on the conflict of interest guidelines, we as Members of Parliament will go a long way to reaffirming the trust and confidence that Canadians must have in their parliamentary process.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are any Hon. Members rising to ask questions?
[ Translation]


Mr. Cousineau:: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I must comment on the statement by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) to the effect that 2.5 million people were drawing unemployment insurance benefits in Canada. I think she is mistaken, and perhaps she would like to rectify her remarks.
Mr. Speaker, 1 note that according to the Parliamentary Guide, the Hon. Member was elected in 1972 and was reelected since then-my congratulations. Could the Hon. Member inform the House whether during that time she ever refused to intercede in any way for friends with the federal departments?

March 21, 1983
Supply


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sorry that the Hon. Member did not understand what I was saying. I meant what I said with very real sincerity. Obviously, we are here to assist people in our constituencies who are in difficulty.
That is not the question that is being debated today. The question being debated today is whether or not we restore credibility and integrity of the House through the means of reaffirming, strengthening and understanding ministerial guidelines. I happen to have sworn that ministerial oath on one occasion. It begins in this way:
Know you that reposing special trust and confidence in your loyalty, integrity and ability, we do hereby constitute and appoint you-
I want to assure the Hon. Member that I have never in any way broken that oath which I took on that day.


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, I gave the Hon. Member an opportunity to make a rebuttal after my own comments on the figure of 2.5 million unemployed workers in Canada, that is, the number of people receiving unemployment insurance benefits, and she has failed to comment on this, Mr. Speaker.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look at my blues. If I made a mistake in the figures which I quoted, I will certainly correct them.
[ Translation]


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, could the Hon. Member inform the House whether there are indeed 2.5 million unemployed? That is what she said, or perhaps she would care to contradict me. Are 2.5 million people in Canada receiving unemployment insurance benefits?


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Opposition is not willing to suggest what changes they would want in the guidelines until the subject matter goes to the committee. Can the Hon. Member explain to me why there is no willingness now to discuss what changes the Opposition would want in the guidelines?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I thought the Hon. Member understood that the motion concerned referring the subject matter of the guidelines to the committee for discussion. That, in fact, was the proposal that was put forward by the Hon. Mitchell Sharp in 1974 and reiterated by the Prime Minister at a later time. We could bring the subject matter to the committee for discussion. I feel that that is where the proposals should be put forward.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I return to my question. Apart from the motion on the floor of the House, if there is dissatisfaction with the guidelines, why can we not be informed of what the Opposition would prefer to see in the guidelines? Why are the Opposition so secretive about what they would want to change? Surely if they could bring something to our attention that would have some real importance, we might even be inclined to see it discussed in committee.
At the moment they are suggesting sending it to committee first. In all sincerity, I do not understand why they would not disclose what they would want to see in the guidelines and why they say the guidelines are inadequate as they are.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I suppose one of the very obvious reasons why we consider the guidelines ineffective and in need of review is that there seems to be no agreement among Ministers on the front bench opposite as to what they really mean. They have different interpretations of the words "lobbying" or "persuasion". They have different interpretations as to whether or not sanctions apply or could apply.
These are matters which make it very difficult for Canadians to understand what the Government believes the guidelines are all about. Therefore, we suggest getting those to committee so they can be written in terms that not even the Government wil find confusing.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions to ask of the Member for Kingston and the Islands. It seems to me that she is arguing that the whole question should be referred to a committee. The Clark Government, of which she was the Secretary of State for External Affairs in 1979, brought out guidelines which were essentially similar to those which are in effect today, yet there was no move at that time to refer them to a standing committee. What has changed since then? If it was really important to have strengthened guidelines, why did they not bring forth strengthened guidelines in 1979?
The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has argued very strongly about pay-offs, broken trust and loss of integrity. She mentioned the figure of $800 a day being paid for a royal commission when, in 1979, the chief counsel for the Mississauga train disaster inquiry was in fact paid $100 an hour, with a maximum of $6,000 per week.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but it is now one o'clock. I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
March 21, 1983

Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, we are being told that Premier Rene Levesque has allegedly pinched $31 million from Quebecers. He was the one who ordered spokesmen for the Societe d'energie de la baie James to settle for $200,000 a $31 million claim resulting from the March 21, 1974 wrecking at James Bay. The Premier intervened in the normal proceedings of a legal suit launched under the Bou-rassa Government. What is utterly ridiculous is the fact that, through such a settlement, the Premier made the SEJB lose $600,000 because, even if it did get $200,000, the SEJB had already spent $800,000 in legal fees. Premier Levesque thus intervened personally to give $31 million to the QFL without any authority from the National Assembly or Cabinet. In my opinion, that was tantamount to looting the public coffers. Quebec hydro consumers must pay for secret agreements based on mere political partisanship. Either Mr. Rene Levesque is not telling the truth or he is acting like an idiot when he claims that no one on his staff took part in the negotiations even though 12 meetings were held in their offices. I think that Premier Levesque owes Quebecers an explanation about this.


HORTICULTURE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, today, March the 21, is the first day of spring, believe it or not, with snow and freezing rain covering the Ottawa area. However, the daffodils from my riding of Esquimalt-Saanich, which I am pleased to make available in the lobbies to all Hon. Members, are not just reminders of spring. Through these daffodils I hope to catch the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and some of his colleagues, as I have done regularly in the past, and to plead that they provide greater protection to Canada's horticultural industry.
Canada's producers of horticultural products can meet their competition from offshore, provided that that competition is not heavily subsidized. Canada's horticulturalists are not seeking subsidies. All they ask is protection against overly subsidized produce from offshore, and relief from burdensome taxation.
Fruit and vegetable producers are already given some protection against subsidized imports. Canadian flower producers deserve similar protection through seasonal and regional tariffs applicable when Canadian products are at their
peak. They also deserve protection against imports from countries where unusual market practices prevail. "Dumping" needs redefinition. Finally, they deserve relief from onerous federal tax levies on fuels used for heating greenhouses. Such taxes might be written off as legitimate business expenses. The Minister of Agriculture should therefore work out-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, despite Government announcements that the facilities necessary for the efficient performance of federal Departments will be built in New Brunswick, there are no major federal capital works projects under way this winter or this spring.
Announcements have been made concerning a lead-zinc smelter at Belledune, the transfer of a federal pay directorate to Chatham, a federal maximum security prison at Renous, a military training centre complex at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, a divisional headquarters of the RCMP at Fredericton, and the Government is holding up construction of the maritime forestry complex at the University of New Brunswick.
The federal Government has allowed subsidiary agreements under the general development agreement between New Brunswick and Canada to lapse. A tourism agreement, highway agreement and industrial agreement are among those which have lapsed. Route 11 along the north shore of New Brunswick is a major developmental highway that should be completed.
With severely high unemployment, the Government should exercise the political will to move these projects forward out of the various planning stages, and create some badly needed jobs and badly needed facilities now.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, time after time band members from the Peguis Indian Reserve of Manitoba have tried to get the Department of Indian Affairs to do something to rectify the reserve's perennial flooding problem. Only last July the Minister wrote to me and said that as soon as he had received a report from the Band about the Fisher River flooding, his office would promptly advise the Peguis Band about what would be done to get Treasury Board approval for a flood rectification project.
There have now been five studies of this flooding, but still nothing has been done to prevent it in the future. So the band

March 21, 1983
members are forced to prepare themselves again for the possibility of another spring flood, for the social and economic disruption it brings, and the costly clean-up that follows.
The Peguis Band approached the Department of Indian Affairs in good faith to do something about their flooding problem; but now the Director General of the Manitoba region has told them that the Government is not willing to fund a major flood rectification program. All Peguis can expect is possible funding for a program of ring dykes around reserve buildings; but ring dykes are no solution at all. The Band will still have to evacuate when the Fisher River overflows its banks, its water supply will still be polluted, and its farm land will still be carried away by the flood.
The Peguis Band is right to feel that it has been duped by the Department of Indian Affair's promises to do something to rectify the flooding on the reserve. With that kind of track record, it is small wonder that there is little trust of the federal Government among Canada's Indians.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 21, I raise a serious matter which is developing in New Brunswick, involving the border of the Province of Quebec, and relating to employment matters. I would certainly invite the Minister of Labour, (Mr. Caccia) to get in touch with the Premier of New Brunswick, the Minister of Transportation of New Brunswick, and other related Ministers, with regard to what is being interpreted as an injustice involving employment opportunities, especially with respect to forestry and lumber matters and the truckers who are bringing pulp material to the IP mill at Dalhousie and to other lumber-related operations. However, it goes beyond that.
Hospital and office employment opportunities are being placed in serious jeopardy. These would normally be available to New Brunswickers. This is because of the strategic location of that part of the Province between the town of Dalhousie, the city of Campbellton, and the Province of Quebec. It is becoming a crisis because of the licensing regulations on the Quebec side, the attitude of the particular Government, and the lack of any protection of New Brunswickers who are seeking employment on the New Brunswick side. Therefore, I would certainly-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, on Friday last the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) indicated to the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) that a preliminary meeting between the mediator and both parties in the EPA dispute had taken place on March 17. The Minister will by now be aware that this meeting did not in fact take place. The Minister by now will be in receipt of a telex from EPA officials setting forth their concern over the appointement of Mr. Gordon Easton. At the time of naming the mediator, the Minister also signed a consent allowing CALPA to take the question of bad faith bargaining to the Canada Labour Relations Board. Under normal circumstances it would be quite likely that this very same mediator would be called to give evidence at such a hearing.
It strains credulity to expect EPA not to object. This dispute is long past the point at which it should have been resolved. By his actions over the past ten days, the Minister has ensured even greater delay in bringing the two parties back to the table.
Atlantic Canadians deserve better treatment than they appear to be receiving. Mutual trust between the mediator and both parties is always essential. Because of the mediator's past involvement with CALPA, he, himself, should have refused the appointment and suggested to the Minister that he seek another name.
Will the Minister not now intervene and bring this overdue long strike to a peaceful settlement?


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, in my statement I would like to refer to a couple of letters that I have received. One is from the Regional Director General of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Manitoba. It is to the Chiefs of the Province of Manitoba. In part it states:
-it has become apparent that Regionally the Department of Indian and Inuit Affairs will not be in a position to sustain the level of budget as compared to the current year.
I would also like to quote from a letter to the Minister from the All-Chiefs Budget Committee, dated March 9, 1983. It states:
From the beginning of our negotiations in May, 1982, you have stated your agreement with the critical necessity of reforming the DIAND budgetary system, with the soundness of the Manitoba Chiefs specific reform proposals.
Mr. Minister, ten long months of arduous, frustrating negotiations with you on the form and content of this agreement..have left the Chiefs with the clear
March 21, 1983

perception that your real attitude to negotiations has been one of duplicity, deception, lack of will and a betrayal of your trust obligations to the Indian people of Canada.
While we have been negotiating in good faith and trusting your empty assurances of support, the Department of Indian Affairs has proceeded to implement unilaterally a 1983-84 budget plan that strikes tragically at the heart of already under-funded services to Indian people-


Madam Speaker:: Order.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Madam Speaker, some time ago in Quebec a united movement started to protest against the tabling by the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) of a working document claiming on behalf of the Quebec Minister of Agriculture that its purpose was to ensure the survival of the agrifood industry in Quebec.
Madam Speaker, there is in Quebec an escalating tax on energy which has fattened the Quebec government's treasury by as much as $900 million. It is also a well known fact that the agrifood industry accounts for some 25 per cent of all the economic activity in the province, which means that through that escalating tax, Quebec farm producers have been deprived of tens of millions of dollars. Madam Speaker, I feel that we should be concerned about these escalating taxes which empoverish Quebec farm producers much more than their counterparts elsewhere in Canada, because this sort of tax is outright dishonest for Quebec farm producers.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, native leaders left Ottawa last week hoping that at the very least the Constitutional Conference had opened the door to a new spirit of co-operation and trust between the Government and native peoples. Imagine their horror when they found that the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) and other Government officials had deliberately deceived them by failing to amend the Accord to entrench equality between native men and women, after promising to do so.
Despite the attempts by some provincial Ministers of Justice to change the wording in a meeting Tuesday night, and a promise by the federal Minister of Justice to native leaders on Wednesday afternoon, the final Accord laid before the native people in the last moments of the Conference was not changed. What has now been entrenched in the Constitution is a clause guaranteeing native rights and their equality for men and women, as they now exist. Everyone knows, however, that our
Oral Questions
existing statutes and the Indian Act clearly discriminate against native women, and the new Accord therefore is meaningless. The Accord that had been agreed to by all participants was deliberately and without further consultation changed to suit the Government's own needs.
Canadians everywhere have the right to expect a higher standard of morality on the part of their Government officials. The betrayal of provincial Ministers and native peoples alike is a shame on the Minister and his Government.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I am ready to admit that I have done quite a bit of thinking about the debates in this House of Commons in which I started to take part more than 40 years ago. I may say that, even before then, I was active for ten years or more in the politics of those days. I think about the period of activity in this country for the past 50 years. I think we have done something. We have made some important gains with Old Age Pensions, health care, allowances for children and so on. There are things of which we can be proud, but there is something that we have failed to do again and again.
There are people in this country who are lacking employment, who do not have a useful part to play in making life great in Canada. We must make that one of the aims in our effort to make life in Canada really worth-while. We have to make that effort. I would say, Madam Speaker, that for heaven's sake, we should do it now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. A Canadian Press wire story handed me just a few minutes ago quotes the Minister as having told national student leaders today that he can offer nothing but faint hope in the face of the mass unemployment among youth from coast to coast: "Students can expect a lot more of the same, more unemployment."
With 600,000 Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24 out of work, and with another 600,000 about to enter an uninviting labour market from the educational institutions of the country, is the Minister suggesting in his quotations, to which I have

March 21, 1983
Oral Questions
made reference, that the Government is not going to include anything in its forthcoming budget to address the most important major problem in the country at this time?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member should know by this time that it is very unwise to try to base a question about Government policy on a quote from a newspaper story. I did not give any such quote. I did not say that we would not do anything to help. In fact, in the meeting 1 had with the students this morning, the purpose of the meeting was to discuss and decide how we could work together in a common fashion to deal with what is a very serious and major priority of the Government, and should be of this country, that is, to help young people get jobs, and to go back to work.
I point out for the information of the Hon. Member that for this year we have increased our funding for summer student employment by over 40 per cent. That is a very clear sign and indication that we do have summer employment for young people as a very high priority. In the meantime, members of this caucus have been working for several months on developing other kinds of options and initiatives that could be examined as part of an undertaking that we can put forward as a way of helping young people get jobs. I both discount the story and the Member's question.


STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM-STRATEGY FOR YOUTH
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, the Minister can discount my question, but he cannot discount the fact that there are 600,000 Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24 without work. The Government's 1983 student summer employment program, to which the Minister made reference, will create only 70,000 jobs, when the need is for ten times that number. Moreover, those jobs are only temporary. They do nothing to provide students and other youth with on the job training for more permanent skilled work. In light of that, will the Minister give serious consideration to the urgings of the Canadian Federation of Students, with whom he met today, that the Government's band-aid, ad hoc approach to job creation be replaced with a strategy for youth employment geared more to creating permanent skilled work of the sort that these students very much need and want?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am very surprised at the question of the Hon. Member. If he had taken the time, and perhaps the interest, to have read the material that we put out concerning the summer employment program, he would recognize that a large portion of that program is dedicated to the internship strategy which combines work and training. We offer direct grants to private employers, non-profit organizations and federal agencies to combine training over a period of two to three years with the direct summer work program. All the Member's question demonstrates it that he does not know what that summer youth employment program contains. Before coming to this House to ask questions, the Member
should take the time to inform himself so that he can ask questions based upon what is, and not on what he thinks the program to be.


FUNDING FOR TRAINING
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is for the same Minister. The students themselves are very familiar with the details of those programs. They are aware, too, of the inadequacies of them, and of the fact that they are faced with unemployment the likes of which we have never before seen in this country. They are also aware of the fact that the Minister's Government is slapping its six and five restraint program on funding for universities and community colleges. In light of that, would the Minister tell the House and, through this House, the young people of the country, why the Government is choosing to slash expenditures in the areas of training and education when those two things constitute such an important part of any rational, vital approach to youth unemployment? Why is the Government slashing funding in the very areas of public policy which are necessary to turn this tragedy around?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the topic we are addressing is unquestionably a very serious one. That is why it is disappointing that the Hon. Member would again provide information which is inaccurate.
When he talks about the so-called slashing of programs, the Hon. Member does not realize that we added 20 per cent to the training program in this year alone. Our budget went from $800 million to over $1 billion. We are providing training programs for over a quarter of a million Canadians. In that training program, Madam Speaker, we are providing, under the Skills Growth Fund, direct investment to community colleges in the Hon. Member's own Province, which is enabling them to modernize their facilities and equipment substantially in order to provide new training positions in high technology areas for the offshore industries and the marine industries. Once again, Madam Speaker, what we are facing is an Opposition which simply does not know what is going on.


LACK OF TYPING SPEED-TRAINING OF WOMEN
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I hope he will answer my question a little more positively. Numerous women in the service industries are losing their jobs. Through industrial retraining programs they are trying to upgrade their skills for other work, particularly in the word processing field. But, even when eligible for a word processing course, they cannot qualify because they lack the required 50 words per minute typing speed, and there are no typing courses available. Will the Minister look into this gap in the training program and see what can be done to help those caught in this particular situation?
March 21, 1983


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would be very pleased to look into the specific matter which the Hon. Member has brought to my attention. I would like to point out, however, that under the National Training Act we do make available pre-skills training programs to local community colleges and organizations which want to sponsor pre-skills pre-trades programs where they can help individuals get up to a certain level of competence, whether it is in mathematics, English, or other basic skills, so that they can become eligible for the longer-term training programs. We are prepared to help with funding under that program. I would be very pleased to provide information to the Hon. Member so she could pass it on to those in her own constituency who might want to start such programs.


FINANCE
Jennifer Cossitt: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Almost one-half of single-parent families headed by women are today living in poverty. The rate of unemployment among these women has increased by 60 per cent over the last year. Will the Minister consider a targeted refundable employment tax credit, or wage subsidy program, for this particular group? This is a concept which has been put forward by my colleagues on other occasions, and which has been endorsed in general terms by the Economic Council of Canada.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I shall take the Hon. Member's suggestion as a representation for the purposes of the budget, and it will be considered accordingly.


BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. If the Minister were one of the nearly two million people unemployed, or one of the two million people on welfare, or one of the tens of thousands of people who are living daily under the threat of layoff, or one of the small-business men going bankrupt these days, or one of the hundreds of thousands of students who are about to enter the job market in a few weeks, and if he had listened to Governor Bouey's speech on Friday when the Governor advised the Minister of Finance to stay on course, to ignore the high unemployment levels, or to accept them, to accept the high levels of bankruptcy, to ignore the
Oral Questions
human tragedy going on, would the Minister of Finance not agree that the Governor of the Bank of Canada has entered the never-never land of Peter Pan and has really lost touch with the people of Canada and the realities of Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is wrong on several points. The Governor of the Bank of Canada did not make a speech last Friday. He gave a press conference. Also he did not state what the Hon. Member attributes to him. I have read the transcript of the Governor's statement, and he did not say what the Hon. Member says he said.


REQUEST THAT ANNUAL REPORT BE LAST SUBMITTED BY GOVERNOR
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, Governor Bouey's advice to the Minister of Finance in his annual report is very clear. He is advising more of the same. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that he is going against the advice of Canadians who are asking the Government in the upcoming budget to be bold, to be thoughtful, to take action to provide some stimulus to create jobs and get Canadians back to work. Considering that the advice of the Governor of the Bank of Canada is contrary to the advice of most Canadians, will the Minister of Finance assure this House that the Governor of the Bank of Canada will never again submit an annual report such as the one he has just tabled for 1982?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is what the people of Canada feel about it. Will the Minister ensure that Governor Bouey will never submit another report again?


Marc Lalonde: No, Madam Speaker.


POSITIONS OF GOVERNOR AND MINISTER
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance, if I can get his attention away from the daffodils which we have today from the West Coast. The Minister has recently indicated that, if he is going to stimulate the economy in his April budget, the deficit could rise to an unprecedented level of $30 billion or more. We have the Governor of the Bank of Canada now warning very clearly that our economic problems cannot be resolved by vigorous use of financial stimulation, since this could only lead to further inflation, a point which the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap has ignored. Are the Finance Minister, who is responsible for fiscal policy, and the Governor of the central bank, who runs monetary policy, on a collision course?


Marc Lalonde: No, Madam Speaker.

March 21, 1983

Oral Questions


FINANCE
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the Minister of Finance. We understand his appetite for deficits, but I believe it is unfair to suggest that the Governor of the Bank of Canada is wallowing in the same sty. The Minister has made the point that the deficit would be financed by borrowing from Canadians, and that would help create jobs. I would like to point out that, when the deficit was S10 billion, the unemployment rate was 8 per cent. This current year, when the deficit is estimated at $27 billion, the unemployment rate was 12.5 per cent. Why should Canadians lend this Government an amount equal to half their savings in order to help create jobs, when historically this approach has not worked? When is the Minister going to introduce more effective measures?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I hope that these measures will be contained in the next budget. I would like to remind the Hon. Member-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Is there a revolution in the New Democratic Party over there?
1 would like to remind the Hon. Member that I indicated that if there were no budget, if nothing were changed, because of lower revenues than anticipated, particularly resulting from lower anticipated oil prices, the deficit in 1983-84 would be around $30 billion. That is before any particular changes are made by way of a budget. As far as what specific measures will be contained in the budget are concerned, I invite my hon. friend to wait for the budget.
As the Hon. Member well knows, the Government goes to the market for borrowing. No one is obliged to lend money to the Government. This happens on an open market and, up to now, Canadians have had greater confidence in Canada and the future of Canada than the Hon. Member seems to have.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Would the Minister tell us when it is the intention of the Government to bring forward the resolution flowing out of the Accord signed at the Constitutional Conference? Could he also comment on how the Government intends to use the new proposed Office of Aboriginal Constitutional Affairs which is being set up in the Prime Minister's Office?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, wo do hope to bring forward the resolution in the near future for consideration by the House at the appropriate time. I think my hon. friend will have to wait with respect to the new office which is to be set up for that to be done, and for the announcement to take place. At that point he will see what is the scope of that office.


USE OF PROPOSED OFFICE
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, could the Minister then assure the House that it is not the intention to link the new proposed Office of Aboriginal Constitutional Affairs with the Indian Liberal caucus that was set up at the last Liberal convention? Can he also confirm they will not use this new office to flow economic development funds through to ridings where they think they can gain Liberal Indian friends, or to swing ridings that are called Liberal swing ridings?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, as a result of the leadership this Government has shown with respect to native rights, it does not need any artificial aids in enlisting the support of native people across Canada.


HOUSTON TRANSIT AUTHORITY-REJECTION OF BID BY CANADIAN COMPANY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of International Trade, in follow up to questions asked by my Leader on February 9 about a decision made by the Houston Transit Authority of Texas to purchase some 130 rapid transit cars for their subway system from a Japanese company over a bid submitted by a Canadian company. The Canadian company was CanCar of Thunder Bay, and its bid was some $29 million lower than the Japanese, but despite that the Japanese got the contract.
Has the Government yet determined why we did not get the contract when our bid was so much lower than the Japanese, and will he give Parliament a report on what he has done as the Minister in charge of trade in an attempt to try to rectify this situation and save hundreds of jobs for Canadians?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to a commercial tendering in Texas whereby Hawker Siddeley was one of a number of companies which bid on a rather substantial sale. It is true that its bid was the lowest of those submitted. However, the authorities in charge of awarding the contract ruled that Hawker Siddeley was unresponsive to many aspects of the requirements of the bid document and it was disqualified on that basis. We have had contact with the
March 21, 1983

company and have also made inquiries of the relevant authorities through our representatives in Texas. I think that is all I can usefully say on the subject at this time.


NEW EMPLOYMENT EXPANSION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration about a fraud which is being aided and abetted by his Department. Last week it was announced that under the NEED Program 242 short-term jobs would be created in the Department of National Defence in British Columbia. At the same time, at Victoria dockyards, 54 term employees, some with over three years seniority, were told they would be laid off effective March 31 of this year. Will the Minister personally look into this situation and ensure that this fraud, this injustice, does not continue? Will he ensure that his Department will not destroy full-time jobs in order to create fraudulent statistics about job creation?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is using the word "fraud" in a very loose-and unfortunate way. I think he should perhaps be more careful in the kind of allegations he makes in this House. It is not the purpose of the NEED Program to replace existing workers. A very clear criterion we have under the Program is that any jobs provided are incremental to the normal work force. That is certainly the case in the area of the Defence establishment, and I have had the assurances of my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, that the NEED Program is not replacing jobs that would be ongoing but ones that were under normal term contracts in any event.


REQUEST THAT DOCKYARD LAY-OFF NOTICES BE RESCINDED
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Canadian people can decide what fraud is, and they will want to look at this pretty carefully.
The base commander has indicated that the jobs being terminated are necessary for the ongoing operation of the dockyards. Taking away one job in order to create several part-time jobs represents a new low, even for this Government. Will the Minister ask the Minister of National Defence to rescind the lay-off notices for the 54 dockyard employees and ensure that the 242 jobs under the NEED Program represent new jobs, not jobs stolen from other workers?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I think, before the Hon. Member gets carried away by his own rhetoric, he should recognize that in this particular case, according to information I have from the Minister of National Defence, there is no replacement with jobs provided under the NEED Program of
Oral Questions
jobs that were there under the winter-term operation. Those jobs will be replaced by a further term contract over the summer months. The NEED Program jobs are incremental to both those levels of jobs.


SHIPBUILDING
Maurice James Harquail: Madam Speaker, I would like to return to questions relating to the economy of Atlantic Canada. My question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services and has to do with the much discussed future employment opportunities at shipyards in Saint John, New Brunswick, under the defence requirements for frigates and new frigate construction. Since this matter is being pursued vigorously now and we anticipate an early decision, can the Minister indicate, with the support of all Members in the Atlantic area, some due consideration for this firm which has shown an expertise in this area so that we may provide additional jobs in an area where they are much needed now?
[ Translation]


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I trust that Members on all sides of the House will support the frigate program as soon as it is underway. In fact, the two finalists have submitted their tenders, and I expect we shall be announcing to whom the contract has been awarded at the beginning of this summer. I also trust, Madam Speaker, that the economic spinoffs will be acceptable to the Members of this House.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and is with regard to the constitutional Accord he will be laying before the House for ratification. The Minister is aware of a most serious discrepancy between the Accord agreed to by the federal and provincial Governments, and by native leaders, and the Accord that was agreed to in two meetings away from the plenary session, and actually laid before the members for signature. Moreover, the Minister was aware of the discrepancy on Wednesday morning and committed himself to correcting what he called an oversight before the document was presented for signature. Why did the Minister choose instead to deceive the native peoples deliberately, who thought they were acting in good faith, and which version of the Accord will he bring to the House for ratification?

March 21, 1983
Oral Questions


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is being mislead, I am sure innocently, by a very garbled version of the facts relating to the particular section in question having to do with the equality of men and women. The conference document reflects exactly the agreement reached among the participants. It was not only my ruling as chairman at that meeting, but it was so understood and, I believe to the best of my knowledge, all the Provinces have confirmed that was exactly the understanding reached at the meeting. There seems to have been an innocent mistake made by some of the participants on behalf of the Native Council of Canada that a proposal they made was actually accepted by the meeting, but that was not in fact the case.
We took soundings across the country from the Attorneys General on Friday to see, first of all, whether or not the communique we believed was exact was in fact exact, and the answer was, yes, it is; secondly, whether or not it would be possible to have an agreement to a further variation or a new variation which would now be agreed. A very large number of the Provinces were against that, and at the moment it appears that the version we will be laying on the Table in the House will be exactly the one which was presented at the end of the conference which, as I said, was the agreement reached at the conference.


POSITION OF PROVINCES
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I have in my hand not only a copy of the Accord that was signed but also a copy of the minutes of the meeting that dealt with this particular section. The wording that was laid before the meeting and that was written into this Accord that was reached behind the scenes was written in by Roy McMurt-ry of Ontario. It differs substantially from the version that was presented for signature.
The Minister undertook with the native people that he would discuss with the Provinces what their understanding is of this-as if there could be any doubt, as it is all committed to writing. What is the result of these discussions? What changes is the Minister going to propose to the provincial Ministers to correct what he alleges to be an oversight and a misunderstanding?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is quite right, there cannot be any misunderstanding. But despite that, I am afraid that he has misunderstood. As I indicated in my answer to his first question, his quarrel is not with me, it is with all the Governments of Canada. All of them take the view that the conference communique represents exactly what was agreed on at the conference. I do not know where he got the minutes, but the Provinces have agreed with us that the published text is the text that was agreed on. We have not only ascertained that, but have asked them if they would be prepared to make, as a variation, what the Native Council of
Canada asked. Too many Provinces are opposed to that for us to be confident that it is possible.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen a few days ago which reports remarks delivered at a meeting by the Secretary of State. He said that his role as Secretary of State is to further his ambition of making Canada a French country both inside and outside Quebec and the task of making Canada a French state.
I wonder if he would explain what he means by making "Canada a French state".
[Translation}


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, 1 am glad that the Hon. Member has given me an opportunity to explain what I meant. The passage he has read is quoted out of context. What I told my audience and what I wish to repeat today is that Canada has a very clear linguistic policy. It specifies that French and English are the two official languages of Canada and have equal rights, status and privileges. Consequently, Canada should reflect the reality of the French fact in its policies as much as it has reflected the reality of the English fact throughout its history.


MINISTER'S MEANING
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State said that his comments were taken out of context as referred to in the Ottawa Citizen. Today I obtained a French copy of the text of his remarks and I should like to read it and ask him the same question.

-because everything we undertake and everything we do so that Canada will be a French state-

I wonder if the Secretary of State of Canada would explain what he meant by that. It is not taken out of context but it is taken directly from his remarks as supplied to me by his own office.


Serge Joyal: Madam Speaker, as I explained earlier, the Constitutional Act of Canada provides in Section 16 that Canada must reflect the reality of its French and English identities in its decisions and policies. When this principle received the approval of all the parties in this House, it was clear for everyone that the government and the people in charge of Canadian affairs in general must make every effort to put French and English on an equal footing. This is why we
March 21, 1983

have proposed, in the House, a series of programs designed to support official language minorities and contribute to various activities which can guarantee Canadians access to the Canadian government in either or both official languages. Is is in this context that I told my listeners that, because of these objectives, Canada should be as French as it is already English and that its policies must reflect both the French and English realities in Canada.


CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Attorney General of Canada. I have given him notice because the question relates to a rarely used section of the Criminal Code in the Chapter dealing with piracy, Section 76.
In his capacity as Attorney General of Canada can the Minister tell the House why a charge has not been laid against the converted trawler Sea Shepherd, of foreign registry and dubious ownership? The ship is currently in Canadian waters with the express intent of breaking Canadian law, specifically Sections 76(b) and 76(d) of the Criminal Code of Canada.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the federal Government, mostly through the Department of Transport and the RCMP, is closely monitoring the situation that my hon. friend described. The role of the Department of Justice has been primarily advisory. I can tell the Hon. Member, however, that if charges were to be laid in this case they would be laid by the Attorney General of Newfoundland as is prescribed by the Criminal Code. In some circumstances the consent of the Attorney General of Canada would also be required, but the action would be taken by the Attorney General of Newfoundland.
It certainly would be possible that an offence might be committed under the law against piracy that the Hon. Member refers to, although it is not obvious that would be the most relevant Section of the Criminal Code. There are many other possibilities involving either deliberate or accidental harm.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I am not a lawyer, although I am something of a sea lawyer.


REQUEST THAT LAW BE ENFORCED
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the Minister knows that the ship is beyond the jurisdiction of Newfoundland because it is outside the three-mile limit, but it is within the jurisdiction of the Attorney General of Canada. Why would he not lay a charge? The ship has been there for
Oral Questions
some considerable time with the express intention of breaking the law. Section 76(b) provides:
76. Every one who, while in or out of Canada,
(b) steals or without lawful authority throws overboard, damages or destroys
anything that is part of the cargo, supplies or fittings in a Canadian ship-
It also provides that anyone who counsels or procures a person to do so is guilty of an indictable offence. The owners of the vessel and all those on board the vessel are clearly in violation of Canadian law. They have announced their intention to break the law.
I want to know and the Government of Newfoundland wants to know why the Minister has not enforced the law and arrested the ship.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, if my hon. friend is so concerned, and I understand his concerns, he can address his concerns to the Attorney General of Newfoundland. According to Section 433 of the Criminal Code, he is the Attorney General who has jurisdiction in such cases. If some of those involved are not Canadian citizens, he will also require the consent of the Attorney General of Canada. He has not so far sought that consent.
I repeat to my hon. friend, it is not obvious that the most applicable section for a charge of this kind is either Section 75 or 76, which deal with piracy. There may well be other Sections under which the Attorney General of Newfoundland would decide that it is more appropriate to take action.


HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, and I have given him brief notice of it. Last fall a 20-year old farm worker in the Fraser Valley died as a result of pesticide poisoning. Last week a coroner's jury concluded that Jamail Singh Deol died as a result of inadequate government regulations on the use of pesticides. A Matsqui-Abbotsford Community Services survey shows that the problem is so widespread that 55 per cent of farmer workers have been directly sprayed with pesticides while working.
I should like the Prime Minister to consider the recommendation of the coroner's jury to transfer the responsibility for the registration of pesticides from the Minister of Agriculture to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has once again been made apparent that the health of farm workers is not being protected by the current registration process.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member was good enough to inform me at the beginning of Question Period that he would raise this

March 21, 1983
Oral Questions
matter, which gave me a chance to discuss it with the Minister of Agriculture.
It appears that the Hon. Member is making a suggestion for change of Departments at the federal level. Of course I am prepared to consider the Hon. Member's suggestion and to examine it. But I would point out to him that the recommendations of the jury, some ten of them, were essentially addressed to the provincial Government. Whether it is Agriculture or Health that regulates and authorizes the existence of a pesticide, it remains up to the Province to train and license the users of that product. Therefore in this case I do not see that a change at the federal Government level would improve the licensing or training by the provincial Government, and it seems to me that that is where the problem should be first addressed.


Mark Willson Rose: Perhaps my supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture might be more convincing to the Prime Minister.


UNITED STATES TESTING OF CHEMICALS-REQUEST THAT PESTICIDE REGISTRATION BE SUSPENDED
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, British Columbia farm workers are being hit by a doublewhammy. On the one hand they will have more difficulty obtaining unemployment insurance at the federal level and, on the other hand, the Socred Government at the provincial level will take away their right to workers' compensation safety standards-they will be exempted if they work on farms.
My question concerns the registration of pesticides, many of which are lethal. Based upon test data from Industrial BioTest Laboratories in the United States-and this company has been charged with criminal fraud for tampering with the results and for falsifying test results-43 of these chemicals are being used in Canada without any retesting. Monitor, one of the pesticides which caused this death, is on the list of 43 chemicals. Will the Minister of Agriculture change his mind and agree to suspend registration of these 43 chemicals until retesting in Canada is completed? That is what the coroner's jury wanted, and that is what the coroner's jury requested.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows, as I do, that some of the representatives of the British Columbia workers are in Ottawa today and that I am meeting with them after Question Period. We will discuss this and we will explain our position in detail to them. To the Hon. Member, I say there is no country in the world which has as strict a use of pesticides as we do. For instance, some of his constituents from British Columbia shop in the United States. Its rules and laws are much more lenient than ours.
As far as the use of the pesticide in fields, et cetera, is concerned, that is under provincial labour laws. We have arrangements with some Provinces where they have passed very strict laws on how to use any kind of pesticide where any
human will come in contact with it, as a matter of fact where animals may come in contact with it, especially after it is sprayed on fields, crops, and this type of thing.
We are concerned, but I would challenge the Hon. Member or anyone else to find a more strict regulatory program than we have in Canada. He knows full well that we are retesting and that we have spent several million dollars buying our own equipment to retest all chemicals which are brought into Canada and were tested by this company. In way over half of them, the tests are proving accurate. Many are starting that IBT tests were all fraudulent. Over half the tests are proving to be very accurate. It takes some time.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Eugene Whelan: This chemical about which he is talking-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister is aware that last week, the House agreed to refer to committee a proposal to help farmers who are being threatened with bankruptcy. In the circumstances, has the Minister asked his department and his officials to advise financial institutions that the Government will be making a special effort to assist farmers who are having trouble with their bank payments, and to enable banks to be a little more generous and a little less pressing with respect to payments to be met by farmers?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that thousands of farmers have been helped, not only by the Government but by lending institutions also. I am sure he is aware as well that some people in rural Canada need special attention. We have also helped people in positions which are not the kind they desire to be in, namely, the economic conditions in which they find themselves. Certain production entities, mostly confined to the red meat industry, whether pork producers or beef producers, are the ones in the greatest financial difficulty. We are doing everything humanly possible to assist them.
But 1 am sure the Hon. Member agrees with me that we cannot just finance them out of the difficulty they are in. Some of them need better marketing conditions, better returns for their commodities. Because the commodities they are producing have shown a decreased level of income for them, they are wanting some kind of stabilization. Most of the countries with
March 21, 1983

which they are competing, for instance, their greatest competitor, the United States of America, have no such program for their producers at all. We have an agricultural stabilization program here, ASA, which provides some assistance. They say it is inadequate at the present time. How quick we will go forward with another program depends on what the Provinces want. I offered a program-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Agriculture. I did not ask him what the Government has done for farmers. We know that. I simply asked him whether he was prepared to ask the banks . .. Last week, all three parties in this House agreed unanimously to refer Bill C-653 to committee, to make recommendations to the Government for the purpose of helping farmers being threatened by bankruptcy. The farmers' bankers should know that the Government and Parliament are prepared to make new proposals to help them get through this difficult period, especially in view of financial requirements for purchasing seed, and so forth, in cases where the bank no longer is prepared to lend them money. In the circumstances, my question is as follows: would the Minister, in view of the unanimous will expressed by the House last week during the debate on Bill C-653, could the Minister at least ask the banks to be less rigid in pursuing payments owed by farmers, since the Government has actually decided in favour of making new proposals. I am not asking what the proposals will be, but could-


Madam Speaker:: Order!


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that I support the Bill. I hope his Party sees fit to give it speedy passage through Committee so that that Bill can become law.
Also I say to the Hon. Member that if his Government had not withdrawn the legislation or the type of program I had provided for income assurance for farmers-and his agriculture critic said in the Standing Committee the other day that it was too rich and too costly-there would have been no farm bankruptcies now at all.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, I have only one question, which is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the visit to Ottawa this week of U.S. Vice-President Bush. Will the Government of Canada be putting before the Vice-President any proposals which would contribute realistically to the nuclear negotiations in Geneva so that an acceptable solution can be found to the
Oral Questions
nuclear arms question, which is the principal concern of people all over the world?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, it is the intention of the Prime Minister and myself to hold discussions with the Vice-President. Among the topics for discussion will certainly be the arms control situation and the negotiations that are currently under way at Geneva. We hope to be making known to the Vice-President our concern that success be attained at these negotiations. Also we will be expressing our views on various proposals which have been made public with respect to these negotiations.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. There is growing concern for another area of unrest and it has to do with the Lancaster House Agreement and the independence of Zimbabwe. I have written to the Minister for almost a year now concerned about developments there. In his last letter about a month ago the Minister said that "The common judgment was that the judicial system at present operated as an effective part of the constitutional framework, and that there had been significant improvements in the observance of human rights since Zimbabwe became independent". In light of recent new developments, and news stories breaking, does the Minister still stand behind this statement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, we have been increasingly concerned about recent developments in Zimbabwe, and we have expressed these concerns to the Government and the authorities. Recently a member of the administration of that country was in Ottawa and these concerns were expressed to him personally. My letter, obviously, has had reference to developments since the beginning of independence and the new Government, and did not cover these recent events which are a cause of great concern to Canada and to other countries.


Madam Speaker:: I just want to tell the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) that I do not know how he can call the question he just asked supplementary to the one posed by the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche).


An Hon. Member:: It was External Affairs.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member did get in on that little trick, but it will not work every time.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 21, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Andre POINT OF ORDER


MR. ANDRE-PROVISIONS IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (C), 1982-83-RULING BY MADAM SPEAKER
Madam Speaker:: I would like to rule on the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). It concerns the procedural acceptability of two votes in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, namely, Vote Lllc under Fisheries and Oceans and Vote 10c under Industry, Trade and Commerce. The Hon. Member argued that these two votes seek to appropriate money for purposes not authorized by Parliament. The Chair would like to express its appreciation to the Hon. Member and to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) for their contributions on this important matter.
The Hon. Member for Calgary Centre raised, as his first point, Vote Lllc under Fisheries and Oceans, the object of which is to increase the borrowing limit of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, as set out in Section 17 of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act. The Hon. Member submitted that this vote is out of order in that it seeks to amend legislation by means of an item in the Estimates. He indicated that the borrowing limit was previously extended by Appropriation Acts from $5 million to $20 million but that rulings in 1974 and subsequently have made it abundantly clear that such a procedure is, in fact, out of order.
The Hon. President of the Treasury Board stated in rebuttal, although with little notice for study which the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre conceded, "that there are many precedents setting out the acceptability of the procedure with respect to Vote Lllc, involving as it does not a request to authorize the Government to spend money, but simply to increase the level of borrowing authority".
In reviewing this matter with great care, I have noted that the borrowing limit expressed in Section 17 of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act was extended in 1970 and 1974 by Appropriation Acts. The Hon. Member for Calgary Centre now challenges this procedure.
I should like to bring to the attention of the House my ruling of June 12, 1981, wherein I stated, having taken cognizance of the opinions of my predecessors, and I quote:
Finally, it seems clear that it is in order to extend the purposes of an item in an Appropriation Act by means of an item in the Estimates provided that it does not amend any other legislation.
This is further supported by Citation 485(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, which says:
Items in the Estimates which are clearly intended to amend existing legislation should come to the House by way of an amending bill rather than as an item in the Estimates.
In the present circumstances, it is clear to me that Vote Lllc seeks to amend Section 17 of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act and is therefore out of order.
The Hon. Member for Calgary Centre also objected to Vote 10c under Industry, Trade and Commerce. I agree with the Hon. Member that here the real issue is not the method used
to transfer money from the Treasury Board Contingencies Vote to Vote 10c, but rather the purpose of the program for which the grant is intended. As outlined in the Estimates, the grant is to provide payments under the Small Business Investment Grant Act which is now before the House in the form of Bill C-136.
I can only repeat what I said in my ruling of June 12, 1981, that "the Appropriation Act should only seek authority to spend the money for a program that has been previously authorized by a statute." Vote 10c clearly anticipates legislation and, in that sense, seeks to establish a new program in the absence of other legislative authority and seeks also the funds to put it into operation. In accordance with rulings by my two predecessors and myself, I must agree with the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre that Vote 10c is also out of order.
Accordingly, Vote Lllc under Fisheries and Oceans and Vote 10c under Industry, Trade and Commerce, being improperly before the House, shall be deleted from the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, and I so order.
As a consequence of this ruling, the two notices of motions standing on this day's Notice Paper under Opposed Items Nos. 7 and 8 and seeking concurrence in Vote Lllc and Vote 10c, cannot be part of today's proceedings and the main motion to concur in the Supplementary Estimates (C), 1982-83, standing in the name of the President of the Treasury Board, will be put to the House in an amended form.
I must tell Hon. Members that because of the very short time which stands between now and the time at which we will vote this evening, it will not be possible to reprint the Bill, but hand corrected copies will be circulated among Members.

Today being the final allotted day for the supply period, as usual the House will proceed with the study and adoption of the supply Bills. In keeping with the recent practice, do Hon. Members agree that copies of those Bills which will be introduced later today be distributed now? Following the ruling by the Chair, a few copies of those Bills are available, as I just said, and they will be distributed because the House will vote on them later on this afternoon.

Does the House agree?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, on a question of privilege, I want to explain my question earlier today when you corrected my motive.
March 21, 1983


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question of privilege. The Hon. Member may have another chance to explain himself but I suspect he wanted to say it was supplementary in the sense that it was a question about Mr. Bush's visit. That is not a supplementary either. At any rate, he does not have a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, Hon. Members, today was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966 as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. It commemorates the anniversary of the massacre of unarmed people who, on March 21, 1960, were demonstrating peacefully in Sharpeville, South Africa, against that country's racial laws.

Canada is one of the signatories to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which came into force in 1969, and since then we have reported six times to the United Nations on our adherence to the provisions of that instrument.
Here in Canada, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the fact that our Constitution does acknowledge the principle of multiculturalism demonstrate clearly to what extent we want all Canadians, regardless of their culture or race, to enjoy equality and justice.

The policy of multiculturalism, adopted by Parliament over a decade ago, committed Canada to the concept of cultural pluralism within a bilingual framework. One of the basic thrusts of that policy is to assist all cultural groups to overcome cultural barriers to full participation in Canadian society. Discrimination against certain cultural groups is certainly a barrier to such participation. The "visible minorities", that is native peoples and people with origins in Asia and Africa, face particular difficulties in this respect.
While we in this country are making progress toward eliminating these barriers, much still remains to be done to achieve the goal of full and equal participation for all our people. In the area of racial discrimination we have begun to open up a constructive dialogue among Canadians in various fields to seek ways in which such discrimination can be eliminated in our society.
The Government of Canada has taken a number of initiatives in this area over the last few years. The most important of these are multiculturalism's tenth anniversary conference in
Elimination of Racial Discrimination
1981 which brought together at the national level for the first time, to begin this dialogue, leaders of business, labour, the media and visible minority groups. The symposium on Race Relations and the Law in April of last year similarly brought together leaders to deal with issues of the use of the law to fight racial discrimination.
A National Conference on Visible Minorities and the Media was held in the fall of 1982. Key representatives from the advertising and broadcasting industries and visible minorities discussed how Canadian media can better reflect and portray the diversity of Canadian society in its advertisements and programs. The Government of Canada has set an example in this area by adopting guidelines on the portrayal and depiction of minorities in federal Government communications.
Within my own ministry, I have established a race relations unit within the multiculturalism program to identify areas which we as a society have to address to remove racial prejudice and discrimination and to promote positive communications and relations.
We all recognize that the promotion of better understanding, tolerance and harmony among our diverse communities is a long-term undertaking. Canada is firmly committed to this undertaking.
[ Translation]
I firmly believe that we can forge a multicultural and multiracial society which is creative, dynamic, fascinating and harmonious so as to set an example for others. Canadians have enough goodwill for that and they are ready. We must derive maximum benefits from their constructive approach and the progress we have made so far.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with its explicit inclusion of the principle of multiculturalism, its preservation and enhancement, is a proclamation of a promise for the future. It is up to all of us to ensure that the promise is fulfilled.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to respond on behalf of my Party to the statement that has just been delivered by the Hon. Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming).
When I was told an hour ago of the Minister's intention to make a statement, my immediate reaction was that we were moving closer to a general election because, as we know, multiculturalism is a very seasonal public policy with this Government. One never hears of a Minister of Multiculturalism until it is necessary for the Government to assure itself of the electoral support of those whose privilege it has not been to inherit Canada by birth but who have made their personal choice to live in Canada and share in its richness, the splendour of our natural heritage and the generosity of the people.
23970

March 21, 1983
Elimination of Racial Discrimination
I can speak with authority and personal experience when I say that many of our most recent citizens made their commitment to Canada, as well, on the grounds of the official public policy and the commitment of succeeding Governments to the concept of cultural pluralism and multiculturalism. I also speak with authority and experience when I say that these commitments are often betrayed and the expectations many of us brought to Canada, together with our industry and resources, were disappointed.
The Minister's statement was prompted by the United Nations proclamation dating back to 1966 which set aside this day as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. This Government now feels that the Accord that was reached in the process of patriating our Constitution and the lofty ideals that are now entrenched within our Constitution are sufficient to eliminate overnight all forms of discrimination on the grounds of race, religion and colour.
It is naive in the extreme for the Government to believe it to be possible to legislate the attitudes of its citizens. We shall never be a truly multicultural society that appreciates and respects the rights of all its citizens, including those of the visible minority, until multiculturalism is recognized in our schools, in our municipal and provincial institutions of government and by all departments and agencies of the federal Government, not just the seasonally adjusted Department of Multiculturalism for which the Minister is responsible.
If the Government is serious about removing the barriers which prevent all Canadians from participating fully in the mainstream of life in our country, and if the Government is serious about progressing toward total elimination of discrimination on the grounds of race, religion and colour, it should consider the advisability of relieving the Minister of a responsibility which has traditionally been exercised purely in political terms and shifting such responsibility to a commissioner of multiculturalism who, like our Human Rights Commissioner, would ensure that all departments and agencies of the Government are held to the Government's commitment and, indeed, that the inducements necessary to ensure that the policy is understood and respected by private institutions as well are provided.
In the future, it will not be good enough for the Government merely to make available a few million dollars to cater to the various ethnic newspapers in the form of advertising Government programs in the different languages or to hold conferences of the type to which the Minister has alluded. If Canada is truly to be a multicultural community and if the Government is to take its Constitutional Accord seriously, we have to progress from the talking stage to a program of action. We will have to invite Canadians to share with us our compassion and understanding for those who live among us and find it difficult, initially at least, to assimilate to those aspects of Canadian life which are dissimilar to their own culture and religion. We will have to invite Canadians to discover the riches contained in the multicultural framework instead of the diversity.
This goal will not be achieved through meaningless discussion but through deliberate action aimed at bringing about a
better understanding among all Canadians, and through public policies which are to be implemented over time, not through intimidation or coercion, but through the creation of a public spirit shared by everyone, one that will assure us that no reasonable person is left out. Only then can we travel around the world proclaiming the United Nations principles to which we are committed with a clear conscience and with our heads held high.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a great privilege to rise on the occasion of the Minister's statement with regard to the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. I am delighted that the Government is taking the opportunity to make use of ministerial statements. I only wish some of the other Ministers would take advantage of the opportunity so that we could respond and ask questions on these occasions.
I also wish to thank the Minister for providing me with an advance copy of his statement so that we may know what policies on multiculturalism the Government is proposing.
The Minister stated that Section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms discusses the enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians. It is my hope that the Minister will use his good offices to ensure that a similar provision is included in the amendments to the Official Languages Act so that that document will also reflect the multicultural heritage that we have as Canadians.
I suspect that if the Minister had more time to make his statement he would also have mentioned that Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms dealing with equality rights also states that there shall not be discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age and so on.
I believe it is important for us to raise the profile of multiculturalism. I believe that many people have not understood multiculturalism. Some of those people may be scholars who have written books such as "The Vertical Mosaic" and who have considered that perhaps there is no place for multiculturalism in an egalitarian society which is concerned with individual merit and upward mobility. However, in the process they have failed to realize that there are group or collective rights in Canada. We have a policy in Canada which is different from that in the United States or any other country which has a "melting pot" policy.
I would like to illustrate what I mean when we talk about Canada being multicultural rather than a melting pot society. I am reminded of an article written by Palmer in 1973 in which he describes a graduation exercise in the Ford Motor Company where English was being taught. At that time there were some 500 graduates from this particular English class. They marched off a large immigrant ship and passed into a gigantic melting pot. As they came off the ship, they were dressed in their national costumes. The teachers stirred the pot and, as the graduates came out of this melting pot, they were waving American flags and wearing the American clothes of that particular era.
March 21, 1983

This is not the type of multiculturalism policy that we in Canada are interested in. However, I would like to urge that when the Minister considers policies here and discusses the whole question of race relations in Canada, he should not deal with this problem of multiculturalism at the expense of eliminating any kind of funding or work which has been done concerning cultural retention in relation to some of the more established groups which have had the requirement of seeing that their heritage has been preserved. I think that is important when dealing with the whole aspect.
At this time I would call upon the Minister to press for an institute of multiculturalism in Canada so that we might have a Canadian institute which would examine these issues. It is not something new. We do have the ethnic chairs, as the Minister well knows. We have certainly received more requests concerning this whole area. However, it is time that the Minister was cognizant of some of the requests which have been made by various scholars throughout Canada that there be such an institute whereby we could have an examination of questions such as race relations, and could also study some of the other aspects of Canadian history. 1 would point out to the Hon. Members that Australia, which has half the population of Canada, has twice as much funding for multiculturalism.
Madam Speaker, I see that you are giving me the high sign, but I did want to make those brief comments because it is important that we ensure a higher profile for multiculturalism. I thank the Minister for his statement this afternoon.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: I would like to ask a brief question of the Minister, Madam Speaker. Would the Minister undertake to look into the following problem. In my constituency, people speak languages which were spoken thousands of years before English or French was spoken on this continent. What is happening is that federal Government offices in villages and settlements are not only putting up signs in English, which everyone speaks as a lingua franca, but they are also putting them up in French, though not in the local languages. This appears to be an exercise in insensitivity. People are asking: "Why did they put signs up in the French language, which no one understands, and not in the language which everyone speaks here?"
Would the Minister undertake to review this matter and see whether it is possible to put the signs up in the local languages as well?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, that question is interesting. I am sure it is of serious concern to the people of those communities, but it is quite far beyond any responsibility of mine. Concerning the question of heritage languages, outside the school system we do have a fund of moneys on a per capita basis to provide money for teachers. We do give assistance to the Inuit to some degree, starting in the last year and a half or so. However, with respect to signage, I suspect that that would relate to the municipalities or the regions-


Some Hon. Members:: The federal Government.
Point of Order-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich)


James Sydney Clark Fleming: -and relate through to the Minister responsible. Signage and languages of signage are not part of my responsibility.


Laverne Lewycky: Madam Speaker, I would like to address a short question to the Minister. As he knows, when dealing with race relations one of the big problems is attitude. In response, for example, to visible minorities in Canada and the United States, there have been slogans like "Black is beautiful". People such as the Inuit have rejected the label "Eskimo", which means "eaters of raw meat", in favour of "Inuit", which means "people" and so forth. There are many attitudinal changes which are necessary if we are to deal with race relations problems.
I am wondering if the Minister is currently handling any kind of studies dealing with these social and psychological aspects of self-image and identity which would assist Canadians, as a multicultural nation, to deal with problems relating to the elimination of race discrimination.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member, as I mentioned in my statement, we now have a race relations unit. As the Hon. Member knows, I believe about two years ago for the first time we granted moneys specifically to carry out research on race relations. The Hon. Member probably received a statement this morning that Cabinet has agreed to double my ongoing grants and contributions budget over the next 24 months. Part of that amount, about an additional $2 million, will be used to study the various ways of overcoming racial tensions in the country. I cannot specifically tell him about that kind of research because I do not have the details, but 1 can point out and, in fact, list for him what projects are under way at the moment.


POINT OF ORDER
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Two months ago today, on the first day we came back after the New Year, I rose on a point of order to ask when we were to have an index for the new Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders. I have risen once since, and I just hope that it will not be necessary, in the third month, to rise again to ask for the index. The Table of Contents is really not very helpful. I do hope that when the index is provided, it will provide a cross-reference with the old Standing Orders so that we will have a full reference under these Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders available to us and will be able to find our way through them with a great deal more ease.


Madam Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for reminding me that he had not received the index. I was under the impression that he had. We will publish an index with the Standing Orders when they are published again after the changes have

March 21, 1983
Order Paper Questions
been made. However, we do have a separate index. I am sorry that the Hon. Member has not received it, but I will ensure that he does receive it.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I am not sure that anyone in this Chamber has received a copy of the index and, if the Hon. Members have not, I do not hope it will be distributed generally.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, I thought it was ready. It will be ready in three or four days and all Hon. Members will be receiving it.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 4,559 and 4,567.


Mr. Thomson: 1.	Are compound interest Canada Savings Bonds the only type of bond available for purchase through payroll deduction and, if so, for what reason?
2.	What is the percentage of sales between compound interest bonds and fully registered bonds?
3.	What percentage of compound interest bonds are sold after one year's ownership?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: 1.
Yes. Regular interest Canada Savings Bonds are not available on these plans because the registration information for regular interest bonds must be received by the Bank of Canada no later than August in each year in order to ensure the timely delivery of the approximately two million interest payments on November 1. Bonds purchased on payroll savings plans are not registered until payments have been completed by the purchaser, normally in October. Purchasers may, however, exchange compound interest bonds for regular interest bonds at any time.
2.	For Series 32 to Series 36 inclusive, compound interest bonds average 48 per cent of total sales and varied from a minimum of 42 per cent to a maximum of 61 per cent.
3.	It has been assumed that the question relates to bonds redeemed after one year from the issue date. In this respect, for Series 32 to Series 35 inclusive, the par value of compound interest bonds redeemed within the first 13 months after the date of issue averaged 40 per cent of the total of compound interest bond sales and varied from a minimum of 32 per cent to a maximum of 55 per cent. For comparative purposes, regular interest bonds of these series redeemed in the same period averaged 41 per cent of total regular bond sales and
varied from a minimum of 27 per cent to a maximum of 72 per cent.


Mr. Hawkes: 1.	Did the Minister of National Health and Welfare write a letter to Mr. E. J. Korhonen, President, Confectionery Manufacturers' Association of Canada, dated October 14, 1982?
2.	in the letter, did the Minister ask the members of the Association to cease importing, manufacturing and distributing certain products as soon as current stocks were exhausted and, if so (a) by what authority does the Minister believe she has the power to ask this of Association members (b) how does the Minister intend to pursue the matter if the members of the Association do not voluntarily cease such importing, manufacturing and distributing?
3.	(a) Were 36,233 metric tons of confectionery sugar imported into Canada in the quarter period ended September 1982 and, if so, is the Minister aware of this fact (b) is the Minister planning to monitor all such imports to determine if her orders are being carried out and, if so, how will she do this?
4.	(a) What will happen to Canadian manufacturers if they fail to cease importing, manufacturing and distributing such products (b) what will happen to others who continue these activities but who do not belong to the Association and will their treatment be different in any way?
5.	Is the Minister aware that the importation, manufacturing and distribution of such products is permitted by law?
6.	Is the Minister aware that recipients of letters such as this might feel they are being threatened?
7.	Was the decision to send this letter a decision taken by full Cabinet or by a Cabinet Committee or by the Minister acting on her own?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes, the Minister wrote to Mr. E. J. Korhonen, President, Confectionery Manufacturers' Association of Canada, on October 14, 1982.
2.	The Minister, in her letter, stated: "I am increasingly concerned that the availability of confectionery products that resemble pipes, cigars and cigarettes may encourage children to take up the smoking habit in later life, a habit that creates serious health risks".
"I would therefore appreciate it if you could ask the members of your association to cease importing, manufacturing and distributing such products as soon as current stocks are exhausted".
(a) The Minister of Health and Welfare is responsible for the health of Canadians and for implementing the health policies of the Government, (b) The Government would have to consider other options available to it. In this connection, the Minister has instructed the Department to prepare options for her consideration.
3.	(a) The Government is aware that substantial amounts of sugar are imported into Canada, (b) The Minister prefers to depend upon the voluntary co-operation of the industry.
4.	(a) The Government would have to consider other options available to it. (b) Both importers and Canadian manufacturers will be asked to consider ceasing these activities.
5.	Yes.
6.	The Minister does not believe that appealing to public responsibility constitutes a threat.
March 21, 1983

7.	The Minister has acted according to one of the mandates of the Department which is to promote healthy lifestyles for Canadians and to enhance the program objectives of the "Generation of Non-Smokers".


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nielsen:
That the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be authorized to consider and make recommendations upon the subject-matter of Ministers and Conflict of Interest; and Public Servants and Conflict of Interest.
André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I now rise to speak to the motion which is before the House and to remind Hon. Members-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands rises on a point of order?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not mean to interrupt or delay the Minister, but when we broke at one o'clock p.m., I was in the middle of answering questions of the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: My understanding was that there was no one rising to ask further questions at that point.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I was in the middle of-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: She was in the middle of answering but she was cut off.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was in the middle of answering a question from the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau), who had asked me whether or not I had used the figure of 2.5 million people on Unemployment Insurance and whether that was correct. I undertook to check the blues and, in fact, found that I had
Supply
used the figure in error. I would like to point out that I had intended to use the figure of 1.5 million.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West rise on a point of order?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I just wanted to find out what the ruling is with respect to questions. If we are finished with statements-


André Ouellet: We are finished.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No one rose further at that point and the incumbent of the Chair, Madam Speaker, recognized the next speaker on the other side of the House to the one who had just spoken. Accordingly, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has the floor.
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think it was clear that the ten minutes allowed for questions had elapsed and that it was time to proceed with the debate and recognize the next speaker.
I am pleased with this opportunity to remind the House that it is the second time in four weeks that the Opposition is spending a full day of Parliament's time on the subject of conflict of interest. I thought the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) would have used this second day of debate to bring forward new elements and to present evidence in support of the as yet unwarranted allegations and accusations they made repeatedly in their speeches and comments, both today and a few weeks ago, when a full day was spent on the same subject. I think it is most unfortunate that Members on the other side of the House, and especially Progressive Conservative Members, should be raising a storm about the so-called Coalgate scandal.
Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, using this expression the Progressive Conservative have tried to instil an element of mistrust in public opinion, and this attempt to discredit not only politicians but former politicians is truly reprehensible, because in fact, there is not a shred of evidence that Mr. Gillespie was given preferential treatment in this matter. Nothing that was said during the first debate or this morning during the second debate could lead anyone to believe or could prove that the former Minister, Mr. Gillespie or the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) have been involved in a dishonourable operation. I therefore say quite honestly that on the part of the Progressive Conservative Members, this constitutes a smear operation that is unfortunate, unwarranted and unjustifiable in the circumstances.
When the Member for Kingston and the Islands made her holier than thou statement to the effect that the public must be able to trust men and women in public life and when she

March 21, 1983
Supply
referred to the public's concern about the integrity of politicians in the present Government, I would remind her that this entire story was a complete fabrication contrived by the Opposition parties a few weeks ago, while the fact of the matter is that the circumstances were known to the public and to the press, that events took place in full view of the public many months ago, namely, the announcement of a project in Nova Scotia sponsored by the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia, an announcement that was made publicly and openly, and no one at that time or since then has tried to doubt the integrity of the people involved in this matter.
However, it is not the public that is worried or has any doubts about the integrity of Members of the Government. It is the Official Opposition that is having misgivings about its political objectives. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands talks about integrity and credibility, but in my opinion, she ought to look in a mirror and ask herself whether she is really showing integrity and a sense of responsibility when she raises unfounded questions as she did today, and as the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Member for Yukon, did a few weeks ago and again this morning.
Mr. Speaker, it stands to reason that men and women in politics must be honest, but what is dreadful is that certain politicians hide behind parliamentary immunity to raise doubtful issues, knowing full well that they do not have a shred of evidence to back up their allegations. When they use their parliamentary immunity in this manner, not only do they reflect on the reputation of the people they attack, but they also do great harm to Parliament itself and to all those who work within Parliament.
I hope that this second day of debate will bring us somewhat closer to reality and enable us to draw sound conclusions on the sense of responsibility which must prevail on both sides of the House. We want to make sure that when politicians choose to accuse someone, they will at least have the decency not to do so under the cover of parliamentary immunity, but rather to make their accusations clearly in public outside the House and be prepared to suffer the consequences should their allegations prove to be unfounded. We are witnessing a flagrant abuse of parliamentary immunity to cast aspersions and throw mud at certain politicans, which inevitably reflect on the integrity of Parliament as a whole.
Indeed, I should like to talk about conflict of interest guidelines, Mr. Speaker, because I am the Registrar General of Canada. Shortly after implementing a conflict of interest policy applicable to each Minister of the Crown, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) requested the Office of the Assistant Deputy Registrar General to administer most of the guidelines.
Hon. Members will recall that the Prime Minister set forth that policy in July 1973, the day after the tabling of the Green Paper entitled "Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest" prepared by the Government and presented by the then President of the Privy Council, the Hon. Allan J. Mac-Eachen, now Deputy Prime Minister. The Government was not
afraid to table that document and set conflict of interest guidelines.
In December of the same year, the Prime Minister explained in the House the guidelines applicable to public servants and senior officials appointed by Cabinet. The Public Servants Conflict of Interest Guidelines fall under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Board which made the Deputy Minister responsible for ensuring that civil servants in the various departments follow the guidelines. I can say that since then all departments have provided additional codes of ethics governing certain aspects of the official duties of their staff. Some Crown corporations and agencies have also drafted additional guidelines. And the office of the Assistant Deputy Registrar General has on different occasions helped several of those departments and agencies to draw up their own code. The guidelines on conflicts of interest for officials are used as models to set up the other codes. Indeed seven principles have been stated and in fact constitute the very basis for the lines of conduct of all individuals who have assumed responsibilities within the administration. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that in those allegations, in those half-truths and statements by Members opposite reference was never made to any misconduct as disrespect of standards by a Minister or an official. The entire so-called Coalgate affair had to do with a preferential treatment said to have been granted to a former minister who had been out of politics for many years and who at the request of a provincial government had endeavored to launch, in co-operation not only with government provincial authorities but also with private interests a job-creating project in an underdeveloped area of the country. And all those pieces of gossip and those alleged scandals have nothing to do with the people who are now governing the country and are abiding by the standards governing conflicts of interest. I would like to mention briefly those seven principles because it is essential that they be kept in mind.
The first principle is as follows: An individual holding an office with responsibilities in the Civil Service should not only comply with the law, but his conduct must be such as to withstand the most thorough investigation. In addition, those people should have no financial interest liable to come in conflict in any way whatsoever with the carrying out of their official duties. That is the first principle. It is interesting to examine that principle and see whether the individuals involved have violated that principle, as alleged by the Opposition. It is entirely out of the question. After considering the situation, one realizes that the principle has not been infringed upon. Now, the second principle: There must be no conflict nor any appearance of conflict between private interests and official duties. Once appointed, the officials should manage their own affairs so as to avoid any conflict of interest.
Third principle: Public servants should exercise care in the management of their private affairs so as not to benefit, or
March 21, 1983

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.
Fourth principle: 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.
Fifth principle: All public servants are expected to disclose to their superiors, in a manner to be notified, all business, commercial or financial interests where such interests might conceivably be construed as being in actual or potential conflict with their official duties.
Sixth principle: Public servants should hold no outside office or employment that could place on them demands inconsistent with their official duties or call into question their capacity to perform those duties in an objective manner.
And finally, seventh and last principle: 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 or friends have an interest, financial or otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, those principles adopted in 1973 have never been amended, neither by this Government nor by the Official Opposition when they were the Governement in 1979. Indeed they were used by the Progressive Conservative Government in 1979 to develop guidelines for their Cabinet Ministers. As I said earlier, an office within my department is responsible for administering on behalf of the Prime Minister the guidelines to be observed by Ministers of the Crown concerning conflict of interest situations. Those same guidelines apply to a number of designated ministerial staff members. Indeed, besides ministers of the Crown and designated personnel, more than 250 persons are subject to the guidelines and had to follow the procedures provided for in order to be protected. The Assistant Deputy Registrar General confirmed to me over the week-end, Mr. Speaker, that all subjected personnel, Cabinet Ministers and others, have followed the prescribed procedures and obtained either from the Prime Minister, or the Assistant Deputy Registrar General approval for the procedures they had to follow in order to meet the requirements of the guidelines. In some cases, of course, it is quite easy for a young assistant, for instance, to comply. But some people have had to make enormous personal sacrifice in order to meet the requirements and enjoy the privilege of working for the Government. No doubt, when our friends opposite formed the Government, they faced the same difficulties. I remember the former Minister of Finance and his wife had difficulty accepting such guideline requirements. But it is important to stress one thing that our friends opposite have totally sidestepped in their discussions and allegations, namely that those who must relinquish certain freedoms in order to serve the Government must know that in so doing they will not become the targets of malicious attacks or innuendoes when after serving the Government they go back to the private sector, resume some of their activities and
Supply
undertake to work once again on their own. Clearly, if there are to be trials of intents, if all those who at one time or other have served as Cabinet Ministers within the Canadian Government are to be maligned, many men and women currently in the private sector who could enter politics and play an interesting role serving their country, who could make a significant contribution, will be most reluctant to do so, if we are to go on tolerating that kind of innuendoes and ill will as are now faced by some former Ministers who served their fellow Canadians with honour and dignity within the Canadian Government.
I submit that such trials of intents at this point, when there is no evidence-and I stress no evidence whatsoever-that those people enjoyed preferential treatment clearly are an unfair and unwarranted attack that does not serve the public interest and most certainly undermines the feeling some citizens could have for public life. And I suggest that those Hon. Members of the Opposition who are making these accusations and innuendoes are taking on a very heavy responsibility and they should have a guilty conscience for misleading the public in this way and for ruining the reputation of politicians who, Heaven knows, do not deserve to be treated in this way, for they have very difficult, exacting and demanding duties to carry out.
To conclude, therefore, I suggest that today's motion once again misses the point. I remind Hon. Members that in 1978 the Government had introduced a Bill respecting the independence of Parliament and conflicts of interest. At that time, the Opposition in its usual fashion, had not deemed necessary to let the Bill pass. The legislative calendar then was very heavy, just as it is today. There were then a great many good bills which died on the Order Paper because of filibustering by the Opposition. If that Bill had been adopted at the time, there would not be such a debate today.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the Minister and his rather emotional and defensive defence, if I might be permitted to put it that way, over this very innocent and worthy motion we put forward for debate today. I cannot for the life of me understand what the concern is on the Government side. They rant and rave about this motion having something to do with an attack on the integrity of politicians on the Liberal side, yet the motion is very straightforward and simple. It makes no reference to Mr. Gillespie or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). It makes no reference to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). It makes no reference to Donald Macdonald, who took an appointment to the Board of Directors of McDonnell-Douglas Corporation within the two-year period when he was negotiating with the former Department of the Minister of Finance with respect to the F-18 aircraft. It makes no mention of Mr. Judd Buchanan with respect to his transaction in Banff

March 21, 1983
Supply
National Park and matters before the Treasury Board within two years of the time he was President of the Treasury Board.
We are not dealing with these various matters, but we have put this motion forward on the basis of answers received from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other Government Ministers as to the deficiencies in the conflict of interest guidelines. We have asked that the matter be referred to a committee. Now, what can be wrong with that? What can be wrong with a reference to a committee, especially when the Deputy Prime Minister, who has answered questions about the Coalgate matter and conflict of interest guidelines, back on July 17, 1973, said, with reference to conflict of interest legislation:
What I consider to be central to the success of the others is the recommendation that a standing committee of each House be designated and charged with a permanent reference to investigate all questions of conflict of interest, to provide Members on request with advisory opinions and to advise the House on a regular basis of any changes which are needed in the rules governing conflict of interest.
These are not the words of the Opposition, they are the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, who now sits next to the Prime Minister of this country-


André Ouellet: What year?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This was said in July, 1973.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, the Chair recognizes that a number of Hon. Members, especially on his own side, are seeking to be recognized.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I will ask a question. It is just that I am amazed that this does not go through without debate.
Why is the Minister now so defensive about a straightforward reference to a committee dealing with the substance of conflict of interest? Is it that the Government has something to hide? Secondly, why does the Minister take a position diametrically opposed to that of the Deputy Prime Minister who supported a permanent reference of conflict of interest matters to a standing committee?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer this question from the Hon. Member. It is clear that the Government has absolutely nothing to hide, and if it had not been for this trick of Parliamentary procedure which the Opposition pulled at the very last minute last Friday afternoon, we would not be dealing with this motion which may jeopardize the Government's very existence. This is a motion dealing with conflicts of interest which could bring down the Government when it is put to a vote later today; it is imperative, therefore, that we, on the Government side, should vote against it. We have no choice. We are not quite as naive as Hon. Members opposite when they were in power to propose a vote and insist that such a vote could bring about the Government's demise. We are not going to vote in favour of our own downfall; we are, therefore, unable to accept the terms of the motion as moved with reference of the subject-matter of the motion to a
Parliamentary committee, for it would bring the Government down.
That is the reason why we will vote against this motion. That notwithstanding, when the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) wants to know why we refuse to do what the Deputy Prime Minister had recommended in 1973, I must say to him that the circumstances now are quite different. In 1973, we had just received the Green Paper which had been tabled in the House on July 17, 1973, and which had to be considered in committee. That was the first time the Government was tabling a Green Paper on the subject, so it was quite in order to refer the subject-matter to a Parliamentary committee, which was done. However, the Hon. Member is trying to create-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! I am sorry but I have to interrupt the Hon. Minister, for several Hon. Members are anxious to direct questions to him.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that this motion is an attack on the integrity of Liberal Cabinet Ministers. The motion was first drafted by the former President of the Privy Council, the Liberal Cabinet Minister, Mr. Sharp. Whom was he attacking?


André Ouellet: I repeat that when the suggestion was made quite a while ago in this House, it involved introducing a Bill following publication of a Green Paper. This was suggested during a first discussion on this subject some time between February and May 1975. A first Bill, Bill C-62, was then introduced in the House of Commons, in June 1978, I believe. During the following session, this same piece of legislation was introduced again as Bill C-6 in October 1978. Obviously, as the Hon. Member has noted in his question, the subject had to be referred to a Committee for consideration, and the Bill was indeed referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections between February and May 1975.
This is why the proposal was justified at the time. At this time, it would not be justified to refer this question to a Committee when those who have spoken, the Leader of the Opposition as well as the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Once again, I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Minister. When questions are lengthy, answers may also be lengthy. However, the last question was rather brief and I want to recognize the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald).


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister is very sensitive. I doubt that he respects parliamentary traditions, but I may be wrong. He now has an opportunity to prove his good faith by agreeing to refer this motion to the Committee so that the guidelines may be examined. Why is he afraid?
March 21, 1983


André Ouellet: I am certainly not afraid, Mr. Speaker. I think that it is the Opposition who is afraid because it had a choice. It did not have to call for a non-confidence vote. When the Opposition introduced the motion now under consideration, it could have ensured that there would not be a vote at the end of the debate today, and especially not a vote which might result in the fall of the Government. I do not think that the Canadian people will be fooled. The Hon. Member and her colleague for Saskatoon-West (M. Hnatyshyn) mentioned a few names earlier. They say that the motion does not refer to anyone in particular, but they still give names; they talk about Coalgate and give a whole list of former ministers. I call this a witch hunt and I believe that the Members opposite are afraid to be consistent, of going outside the House and making specific charges against certain individuals. To simply insinuate certain things does not take much courage. The Hon. Member has asked me why I am afraid. I shall ask her the same question: Why is she afraid? Let her rise and put her seat on the line and make a formal accusation against someone! We shall see whether she is afraid or not!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question period has now expired. I now recognize the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, the House has heard a number of comments on this important question which is the subject of a motion put by my party today, and therefore, following the comments made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), I should like to remind the House that there is indeed justification for bringing this motion forward today.
I do not think the purpose of this motion is to go over the so-called Gillespie affair again. However, considering what has been going on in the House for a number of months and especially in the last two or three weeks, I think in the light of this information, the Opposition had a duty to ask the questions it did on a subject which in fact was directly related to what are also known as the conflict of interest guidelines.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should recall how at first, the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources refused to answer any questions. Perhaps we should also recall that he misled his Prime Minister, and that as a result, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), misled the House. Excuses were made, and indeed, how easy it would be for anyone who wanted to do something wrong to excuse himself afterwards in the House. Sure, I stole this or that from you, but I am sorry, I needed it or may be I had some other reason. In the circumstances, I think we had a duty to put this question regarding the guidelines and the policy that were tabled by the Right Hon. Prime Minister himself.
Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians ought to know whether the Members of this House really intend to provide that credibility which Canadians have a right to expect. I think that is the question before the House today, and we are giving Hon.
Supply
Members an opportunity to take part in the debate and to support a motion that would simply be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for an in-depth study, and the Committee would then formulate recommendations for the House. It should not be left up to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada. Furthermore, today, the guidelines and recent events have proved without a doubt that the Right Hon. Prime Minister is actually both judge and party to the case. Let him judge himself whether he should ask for or demand the resignation of a Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), who tells us that as far as he is concerned, it is a matter of conscience. Therefore, if the Minister who spoke earlier told the House that the public is not easily misled, that is absolutely true, and all this business will unfortunately make the Government lose its credibility and give the public the impression that politics is an unsavory profession.
To restore confidence in this institution so that it will get the respect it deserves and have the credibility it needs to govern the country and make it progress, we are presenting a motion that is entirely non-partisan. We are asking that this matter be referred to a Standing Committee of the House, where all three political parties will have an opportunity to make sensible recommendations so that it will not be left up to the Right Hon. Prime Minister to judge whether his Minister did or did not do wrong.
Depending on the importance of his Minister, the Prime Minister might not always give us the same opinion. Had the whole Gillespie affair involved a minister of State without portfolio, how long would the Prime Minister have stood by him? The general public has the right to wonder about that. We know perfectly well that due to the circumstances, everybody decided to back up the accused and reached the conclusion that it is a matter of conscience and that the guidelines are flexible enough to allow for some leeway in their application. One must realize, Mr. Speaker, that the people have not been fooled. We were right to keep at it during Question Period because the more questions we asked, the more we came to realize that something was wrong with the application of the guidelines. Members of the Liberal Party held that same view in the past. It was said earlier today that Mr. Sharp had let it be known at the time that he wished to propose a policy under which Parliament would have and would have been in a position to compel all former Ministers, all civil servants and Members of the Government to comply with the guidelines.
Today, we propose this motion and I do not think I am wrong when I say to the Minister who tells us that our motion automatically entails a non-confidence vote, that we did give the Government this morning the opportunity to waive the noconfidence aspect of the motion in order to avoid to put the Government in a difficult situation. We were ready to do it, as was the New Democratic Party, and with the unanimous

March 21, 1983
Supply
consent of the House, we could have avoided that no-confidence motion in order to get the Government Members to vote in favour of the motion and refer the matter directly to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The Government rejected that offer. The Minister neglected to say that earlier. The Government refused to waive the no-confidence aspect of the motion. In my opinion, if the Government had wanted to show some credibility and honesty vis-a-vis the people who are listening to us today, it would have accepted our proposal this morning. Therefore, Members who truly want to restore to this institution the credibility it deserves and to the respect they its Members deserve also, would have been given that opportunity.
In view of this refusal, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Government does not want to change its way of operating and that the Prime Minister still wants to assume responsibility for the enforcement of these guidelines. When we see all that is going on, Mr. Speaker who is going to believe and ask the public to believe that the Government deserves the confidence it is asking for today. It is outrageous, Mr. Speaker! We are simply asking that the matter be referred to an non-partisan committee which will make recommendations to the House that would come into force should someone act improperly or at least to make sure that Parliament is protected from any impropriety. That is the purpose of today's motion. It is very well drafted, in a non-partisan way. One has only to read it to feel the deep desire of the Progressive Conservative Party, today, to give the general public all the safeguards they are entitled to when it comes to the credibility and integrity of this Parliament.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I repeat once more that I shall support this motion without hesitation. I deeply regret that the Government has rejected the proposal that was made at the outset of the debate this morning, which would have allowed it to support this motion without jeopardizing its own future. In doing so, they would have proved that they were not afraid to give a mandate to the Standing Committee of privileges and elections with a view to establishing guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. The Government refused, Mr. Speaker. This refusal by the Government proves its bad faith. It does not want any committee to be responsible for establishing guidelines because they would be much less partisan than they are now, or at the very least, they would be assessed by a nonpartisan committee and not by the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada.
I have been in politics for over 15 years, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think that I could have any confidence in the Prime Minister of Canada if he were to guarantee that his guidelines would be applied in a non-partisan manner. It is impossible. We have seen certain things in this House. The fact is that we not only can, but must question certain actions of this Government. When I hear the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) complain and try to criticize the Opposition for its lack of objectivity or honesty, all I can say is that it is our duty to ask some questions and I shall never believe that the Government would expect the Opposition to stop raising controversial issues one fine day. It is our duty to do so to ensure that this country is well governed, and the results that we have seen both with regard to the administration and the behaviour of the Government towards certain individuals, urge us to be even more aggressive and demanding. I believe that the public want us and order us to be more particular about the administration and the judgments of this Government recently. This is why we introduced this motion, so that the Government may take some action if it truly wants this institution to regain the credibility that it is now losing because of the conduct of its Members.
Having in mind this objective that we all share in this House, we have introduced this motion so that the people may have confidence in this institution and in the men and women who have decided to work on the political scene. Of course, certain periods are more difficult than others for the Government, but if the Right Hon. Prime Minister had applied the rules as they were written at the proper time, Canadians would be able to trust this Government. However, the Right Hon. Prime Minister refused to apply the rules as he had said that he would. Instead, he has decided to be lenient to a Minister who lied to him in the House and misled him, because of which the Right Hon. Prime Minister had to recognize that he had himself misled Parliament. He said that he was sorry and washed his hands of the whole affair: "I said I was sorry and that is all there is to it."
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have to be more exacting than that. If the Right Hon. Prime Minister is willing to allow his ministers to apply the rules as their conscience dictates, I for one cannot accept it and I do not believe that the Canadian people will accept that every Minister can apply the rules according to his own conscience. I believe that this kind of flexibility is unacceptable and reprehensible, and this is why we can no longer trust the people who govern this country. We are asking that the three political parties represented in this House and this Parliament can at least have their say about the implementation of the guidelines. What should the guidelines be? How can we make sure that there is no conflict of interest? That is important for the credibility and sound management of this country, and that is why once again we recommend that motion today because we were hoping that Hon. Members would find a way to refer this whole issue to a non-partisan Standing Committee. We have provided the Government with an opportunity to do just that, but they refused. Of course, we will be forced to challenge the Government by holding a vote later today, and that will justify Government Members to defeat our motion because otherwise they would be the architects of their own downfall! The one and only justification for the Government to reject our motion was to refuse that we delete the non-confidence feature of the
March 21, 1983

motion. Had they accepted, we could have voted regardless of party lines and very objectively on the need to change the guidelines, and I am convinced that many Members on the other side are convinced as I am that they need to be changed. The Prime Minister can talk about changing the guidelines! But why all of a sudden does he agree to change the guidelines if we were wrong to raise questions on this issue for the past 15 days? I suggest that our attitude in the House forces the Prime Minister to say that he is prepared to make some changes. What would they be worth if the Prime Minister were to act as both judge and jury with respect to the implementation of those guidelines? People pass judgment on the attitude of the Prime Minister these past few days. Let him tell me that he will indeed change the guidelines! But if he maintains that only he can make recommendations concerning their implementation, that would not leave me any more confident than I was 15 days ago, and the people have absolutely no guarantee that such changes would restore the credibility we are seeking.
Therefore, if we are to have a thorough review of the application of these guidelines, we think it should be done by a Standing Committee of the House and that is why we are putting a motion to that effect today. We had hoped, and we shall continue to do so until the vote is held, that Hon. Members would understand the impact of this motion. It is a motion that is very important to all Canadians, a motion that is non partisan and whose aim is to restore the integrity and the credibility of Parliament and respect for the individuals who sit as Members of Parliament and represent their parties.
That is why we are putting this motion today. We thought the Government would have been serious, courageous and honest enough to accept our motion, in view of our aims and to provide Canadians with a profound sense of honesty and fairness. The Government has refused or will refuse, and at 5:45 p.m., Canadians will be the judge of the Government's actions, and we shall remind Canadians that the Government is entirely unwilling to take any kind of corrective action that might restore to Parliament the respect it deserves.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Any questions? In that case, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Ethier) has the floor.


Mr. Denis Ethier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it is also my privilege to speak on the motion of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) which reads as follows:
That the Standing Committee of Privileges and Elections be authorized to consider and make recommendations upon the subject matter of Ministers and conflict of interest; and public servants and conflict of interest.
I intend to restrict my comments to Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and their exempt staff, and individuals appointed by Governor in Council. I said that it was my privilege to speak on this subject, and I mean it sincerely. At last I have an opportunity to tell my fellow Canadians the
Supply
alarm and dismay I feel with respect to the unjustified and often vicious attacks on the integrity of my fellow colleagues, colleagues who work tirelessly and assiduously in the service of Her Majesty's Government, often at a great sacrifice to their personal health and families.
The extent of this attack is unparalleled. Is the Canadian public really to believe that such honourable and distinguished Canadians as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), Alastair Gillespie, the late Robert Andras, the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) and Norman Cafik are guilty of engaging in some as yet unknown dishourable activities? These men have devoted the main part of their lives to public duty.
It is my contention that the Opposition has deliberately misinterpreted the content and intent of the Government's conflict of interest and post-employment guidelines and has engaged in a ruthless, unfounded and unprecedented attack on the good character of both current and former Ministers of the Crown. I will leave it to others to speculate why, but I think it is obvious.
However, the Opposition has the effrontery to suggest that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections should both consider and make recommendations upon the subject matter of Ministers and conflict of interest guidelines. Why should the House even contemplate such an absurd suggestion? For the last month the House has heard allegations of wrong-doing by current and former Ministers of the Crown but not one scrap of evidence.
I submit that this House has had enough of these unwarranted and slanderous attacks. Referral of the guidelines to a committee at this stage would only continue this partisan charade and prolong the unnecessary suspicion and humiliation of innocent Ministers and their families.
If the Opposition is sincere in its suggestion, then I would suggest they participate fully in any of the committee hearings with respect to the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey). It is important that the House renew its confidence and that of the Canadian public in the basic integrity of all Members of Parliament. This integrity is the cornerstone of democracy and is absolutely essential to our Canadian system of Government. Parliament, and I say Parliament, must cleanse itself, and quickly, from any lingering image of shadowy or unscrupulous dealings that may have been created by the series of malicious and unfounded allegations. Further review by a parliamentary committee would lead to the continuation of virulent and partisan attacks on the integrity of public officials and further undermine the faith of Canadians in their democratic institutions.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I believe that Members of the Opposition Parties have deliberately misinterpreted the guidelines. In addition, they have repeatedly confused the requirements of present Ministers of the Crown with respect to

March 21, 1983
Supply
the cooling off periods required of former Ministers. As Members of the Opposition should know, Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, Governor in Council appointees, public servants, and exempt staff members may not accord preferential treatment in relation to any official matter to relatives or friends or to organizations in which their relatives or friends have an interest. In addition, in any official dealings with former office holders, Ministers must ensure that they do not provide grounds or the appearance of grounds for allegations of improper influence, privileged access or preferential treatment.
I would like to remind all Members that the guidelines do refer to official dealings with former office holders. They do not, as many of the Opposition spokesmen have continually tried to imply, prohibit contact with former office holders. The guidelines applying to employment and commercial activities of former Ministers were established pursuant to the principles set out in the conflict of interest guidelines and were to be applied in accordance with those principles and with the aim of protecting the individual liberty of former Ministers to the fullest extent possible.
The question of post-employment guidelines is a complex area, as 1 am sure other Members now realize, and involves the questions of judgment by both Ministers and Members. The prime requirement of Ministers, either former Ministers or those still in office, is that they must at all times ensure that they act and provide the appearance of acting in an impartial and objective manner. These principles are of vital importance in a parliamentary democracy, and 1 believe that all Ministers including. I sincerely hope, former Ministers of Conservative Governments, do take them seriously. However, what saddens me about the latest controversy is the low regard in which Members seem to hold the integrity of their fellow Members.
The guidelines prepared by the Government require interpretation by the individual involved and the ultimate onus is on the individual. It is an individual judgment, and it should be an individual judgment. The integrity of the individual, and particularly of the Member of Parliament, is the cornerstone of our present democracy. I do not believe that a parliamentary committee should be the forum of further unfounded attacks on the most fundamental principle of our system of Government.
I would contend that it is obvious that the Opposition has run out of steam and would like to establish a review of the conflict of interest guidelines by the parliamentary committee solely to engage in a scandalous and unproductive witch hunt. The Government has nothing to fear and nothing to hide but it can see no useful purpose in such a review. It is also well aware of the adverse impact that a review would have on the image of all Parliamentarians, but most important the attention of Members and of all the Canadian public would be diverted from our most vital problems, the economy and the unemployed. I and my colleagues do not feel that Canada deserves or can afford further diversions of the minds of its elected Parliament from the pressing problems of the day.
History will record this passage in the time of the House of Commons as an irresponsible and expensive waste of the taxpayers' money and of the opportunity to develop responsible programs and policies for all Canadians. There have been no improprieties, only unfounded, partisan and slanderous allegations.
All discussions were conducted openly. No pressure of any kind was ever exerted on officials, and most important, at no time were any former Ministers, whether Mr. Gillespie, Mr. Andras or Mr. Cafik, their partners or colleagues, treated any differently from the way any other citizens would have been.
1 would also remind Members that in two of the recent allegations, those with respect to Mr. Gillespie and the late Bob Andras, provincial Governments were intimately involved in all the dealings, yet not once has the Opposition suggested preferential treatment on the part of the Provinces. I submit that in both these cases it was an Opposition tactic to take precious time from the House to tarnish reputations-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: You cannot tarnish Gillespie's reputation. It is impossible. He has done it himself.


Denis Éthier: -while being protected by parliamentary immunity, and above all to draw the attention of the public in the hope of bolstering the image of one candidate in the leadership of the Tory Party, namely, the past Leader, the choice of the Hon. Member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). The Opposition is engaging in political vaudeville. I would laugh, if I could, but when I think of my former colleague, the late Hon. Robert Andras, being deliberately defamed, I can feel only shame. What has this House come to? Members of Parliament attacking a former respected, honest and hard working colleague, strictly for political gains.


Erik Nielsen: That was the media.


Denis Éthier: I urge my fellow Members to stop this unnecessary scandalmongering and return to the country's business. We must restore the integrity of the House, which has been so long under attack, and confirm Canadian's longstanding support of their democratic institutions.
The Opposition has alleged over the last month that former Ministers have contravened the guidelines with respect to lobbying within the two-year time period. I would like to stress that the intent of the guidelines was that wrongdoing should be prevented, not that former Ministers should never receive information from their former Departments.
If the intent of the guidelines was "no contact" then that is what the guidelines would have said. In fact, the guidelines specifically refer to the line of conduct Ministers must observe "in any official dealings" with former office holders. Members should remember that the responsibility for policing the guidelines is solely individual conscience. There is no enforcement mechanism, nor should there be. It is not incumbent upon Ministers or Members of Parliament to question the moral integrity of their former colleagues. The integrity of the conscience of every individual Member of Parliament is the cornerstone of our parliamentary democracy, and I cannot
March 21, 1983

accept that this integrity is in any way eroded upon leaving Parliament.
I believe that our policies with respect to former Ministers are sound. May I quote from the Prime Minister's letter to Ministers on October 18, 1976, which was tabled in the Elouse of Commons on December 17, 1976 with the draft guidelines. It reads:
The new policy reflects the delicate balance that we have struck between our desire, on the one hand, to respect the right of the individual to use his or her knowledge and abilities for economic gain and personal development and, on the other hand, the requirement of protecting the right of the public to have reasonable assurance that the public interest will not suffer in the process. In adopting this policy, we have been keenly aware of the fact that measures designed to remove every opportunity to act unwisely would require a severe reduction of the traditional rights enjoyed by all Canadians, and place us in jeopardy of losing the spirit, competence and perhaps even the integrity itself of the Canadian public service, which have been so painstakingly nurtured over the years.
We must also avoid the danger of reducing the public benefit which results from the movement of individuals among the various sectors of society- governmental, commercial, industrial, academic and professional. The real concern and focus of our policy is to protect the integrity of government service, and to prevent private exploitation of the public trust.
Many may interpret the Opposition's criticisms as a plea for the prohibition of all contact between Ministers and former Ministers. I would ask all Members to consider what kind of Parliament would result from the implementation of such guidelines. Only the most independent and wealthy individuals could stand for public office under such strict regulations. The pressures to retain office would be inordinate, to the consequent detriment of our system of Government. Perhaps the Opposition would favour such a development, but I personally find it repugnant.
In a true democracy, the elected representatives should be drawn from all walks of life and not the privileged few. Surely my colleagues on both sides of the floor realize the magnitude of the personal and family sacrifices involved in political life. I would humbly suggest that those of a Cabinet Minister are even higher in terms of the demands for work and time. Now more than ever Canada needs its ablest minds in Cabinet. Can we afford to put even further limits and impose greater sacrifices on these individuals? I say no.
There should never be preferential treatment for former office holders, Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, the Ministers' exempt staff and senior Governor in Council appointees, but surely they cannot be denied the basic right of Canadian citizens to access to the federal Government. The present guidelines adequately protect the public interest during any period of contact with the Government. I cannot envisage any workable system of the type implied by Opposition critics that would prohibit contact of any kind.
I would suggest that if the Hon. Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) were at least serious about their motion, they would have consulted the Government House Leader. If they were in fact serious about the suggestion they made at the opening of
Supply
today's debate, they would have contacted someone in our Party. They chose instead to bring this motion on the floor of the House in the form of a non-confidence motion. That is how we will deal with it, and we will put an end to this witch hunt which seems to be the sole preoccupation of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. Knowing the limited knowledge the Hon. Member for Yukon has on economic matters, perhaps that justifies his continual witch hunting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are Hon. Members rising to ask questions?


Mr. Blenkarn:: Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what he is asking for? He said that Parliament must cleanse itself, and then he said that the Government has nothing to fear and nothing to hide. If that is the case, why would the House not approve of this motion? This motion is in exactly the same terms as the one put to the House in 1974 by a former and respected Member of the House, the Hon. Mitchell Sharp.
If the Government has nothing to fear and nothing to hide, and if Parliament must cleanse itself, why would the House not want this matter to go to committee to be dealt with there? Or, is there something to hide?


Denis Éthier: Mr. Speaker, I think I anticipated that question and I answered it before I sat down. I told them that they did not have the decency to consult with anyone in our Party before presenting that motion of non-confidence. That is how it will be treated, as a non-confidence motion.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the terms of the motion are identical to the motion that the Government itself put to the House in the past. Surely it is unusual for the Opposition to suggest to the Government to vote as if this was not a nonconfidence motion. Does the Government insist upon this being a non-confidence motion? We are prepared to treat this motion as not being one on a matter of confidence.
The Parliamentary Secretary must have something to hide because he is quite at liberty to vote against it. We will not treat this matter as a matter of confidence.


Denis Éthier: Mr. Speaker, I find that difficult to understand. We have to keep repeating our view, but they never seem to understand or want to understand. They could have brought this matter up on any other Opposition day without its being a motion of confidence. The Opposition chose to proceed in this manner and we are now dealing under their rules. I find it very strange-the House Leader smiles-


Erik Nielsen: I am not the House Leader.


Denis Éthier: The Canadian public knows by now his ability to come to the House and play these tricks. But I do not think that we will buy it.


Erik Nielsen: Will the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary tell me, since the House unanimously passed their motion on December 10, 1974, and they are now objecting to passing their motion which was not dealt with after it was passed by the

March 21, 1983
Supply
House, why the Government is objecting to passing it unanimously on this occasion? What has changed between then and now?


Denis Éthier: Mr. Speaker, nothing has changed. It is the way it was introduced today by the Leader of the Opposition. Let him introduce it on any other way and we will see what we do then. But introducing it as a non-confidence motion is inviting us to the gallows.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Hon. Member used the word "absurd" in relation to this motion, stating that it was an absurdity to have it presented. He presumably supported the motion when it was introduced by Mr. Sharp because it was passed unanimously. Did he support a motion eight years ago that he now thinks is absurd and is now voting against? Which side is he on?


Denis Éthier: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Hon. Member is putting words into my speech that I did not use. I did not use the word "absurd" as to the motion.


Mr. McDermid:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. I gather from what he said that because Cabinet Ministers work so hard and sacrifice so much, there is no difficulty with their contacting other sitting Cabinet Ministers after they have finished their tour of duty, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Is the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary saying that there is no problem with contacting sitting Cabinet Ministers and negotiating deals? I almost brought out the violins when he was saying how they sacrificed.
Every Member sacrifices in the House. Hon. Members realize the sacrifices they must make, and they should not be treated any differently from the honest businessman who is trying to get a contract with the Government to proceed with a project which he may have.
Is he telling me that there is nothing wrong with a Cabinet Minister contacting other Cabinet Ministers, especially because they worked so hard and are special? Is that what he was trying to say in his speech?


Denis Éthier: I said that every Member of Parliament works very hard and their jobs are demanding on their families and themselves. I said that these demands are even greater on Cabinet Ministers. I would say that again.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, due to the Parliamentary Secretary's experience in the Chair, I am sure that he will realize that no suggestion can be made on the debate of a nonconfidence motion until it is called. For that reason we immediately agreed with the NDP, in the interest of having this matter examined so that the reputations of reputable people like Mr. Gillespie can be untarnished, that it be examined in committee. Since this was the Government's motion back in 1974, and it has not changed at all, what we on this
side cannot understand is why the Government is stonewalling attempts for the truth to come out.


John Horton McDermid: Cover-up.


Denis Éthier: I find it very strange that the House Leader of the Opposition, himself, gets into this matter, asking these questions. I say, in all courtesy, that he is the one who should have called the House Leader for our Party over the weekend. He could have called him and suggested what he is suggesting this morning.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


Mr. Blaikie:: I am not rising on a question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Blais:: I would like to ask a question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for-I recognize the Minister of Supply and Services.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he, in effect, is not aware of the fact that today is basically the end of the Supply period. On this day, the Opposition is permitted to present a non-confidence motion in accordance with the rules. In effect, that nonconfidence motion must be voted upon, and if it is not, we are, of course, infringing the rules. Under the circumstances, is he not aware of the fact that-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Nonsense.


Jean-Jacques Blais: -that if the Opposition motion, in effect, is voted and if the Opposition wins that particular vote for one reason or another, then the Government must resign?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Not so. There is supply to vote after, and that is the non-confidence.


Denis Éthier: I understand it quite well, no one understands it more than the Leader of the Opposition or the House Leader of the Opposition, and that is why the Opposition brought it in this morning.


Erik Nielsen: Will the distinguished Parliamentary Secretary, who has occupied the Chair so often in the past, readily admit to me that he is having his leg pulled a mile by the Minister who just spoke? Because, as he well knows, and I am asking him to agree with me, if the Government side consented, as requested by the Leader of the NDP, and it was agreed to by us, the provisions of Standing Order 62(9) could be suspended. That was the purpose in asking for consent, and the Government side is refusing that consent. Please tell us that the Minister is all wet.


Jean-Jacques Blais: No, he is not. He is as dry as anything.


Denis Éthier: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Leader of the Opposition is all wet. We will not fall into the games that he
March 21, 1983

wants to play and the tricks that he brought in this morning, and we will be a responsible Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have been following the debate today with some interest. 1 want to address my remarks to some of the questions which have been raised by Government Members, in particular by the apologists for the Government who oppose, and I think in an unthinking way, a very serious and very straightforward proposition, that is to say, that the House of Commons be given a mandate, through its Committee on Privileges and Elections, to review the present state of conflict of interest guidelines which were first brought down as a result of parliamentary inquiry, investigation and reference by this House ten years ago.
On a number of occasions we have attempted, as a Party and as individuals in the Opposition, to make this request. The Parliamentary Secretary who just spoke said that there should have been consultation as to whether the motion should go through as a matter of consent between the Parties. On different occasions, the question was asked in Question Period of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) as to whether or not they would consider a reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. On each occasion, the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister refused to agree to that during the course of Question Period.
Therefore, there was only one course of action which could be taken by any responsible Opposition which felt that the honour and dignity of this institution were at stake with respect to these important matters involving conflict of interest, that is, to bring forward a motion on the first available Opposition day. We went further this morning, when the Leader of the New Democratic Party stood in his place and suggested that unanimous consent of the House be obtained. We sought such unanimous consent, and we in the House agreed that the motion would not be taken as being a motion of confidence, and would thus allow every Hon. Member, including those on the Government side, to vote in favour of the motion without any fear of the Government falling as a result of its passage. That has been denied, not by this Party, because we have agreed, through our House Leader-


Erik Nielsen: Nor by the NDP.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -nor by the New Democratic Party, not by the backbenchers of the Government Party, but, rather, by Government Ministers. They were the ones who stood up and blocked this very reasonable reference-


Nelson Andrew Riis: That's right.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -of a motion to a committee.


Erik Nielsen: It was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Supply


Nelson Andrew Riis: A shameful act.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: it was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Blais), that great defender of integrity and politicians. He was the one who said, "Nay".


Erik Nielsen: Maybe he wanted to call for advice.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I say that it was tantamount to contempt of Parliament for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to have taken that position.
I also want to point out that it is important that we have a review at this time-


Jean-Jacques Blais: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You will get an opportunity at the end of the speech to ask questions.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. gentleman, in accusing a Minister of contempt of Parliament, is behaving in a way which the Chair ought not to accept. Indeed, those are very serious allegations which ought not to be made lightly. I would suggest that the hon. gentleman withdraw that statement.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Nonsense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 want to indicate what was visually obvious to the House, that is, that I have just taken my place in the Chair following the departure of the Deputy Speaker. While I was being seated, I did not hear the Hon. Member's remarks. I would have some concern over an accusation that an Hon. Member has attempted to make before the House. However, before I go further, 1 would say that it is only a concern and not to be considered as a ruling.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for this institution. When I say one has contempt for the institution, if I believe that to be the case, I do not believe that that is an unparliamentary term. If I believe that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has shown contempt for this institution by the position he has taken on this issue, that is a strong contention on my part. If it is unparliamentary, I will certainly withdraw it-


Erik Nielsen: No, it is a contemptible position.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -because I respect this institution and everything for which it stands as being the last court of appeal for the people of Canada against arbitrary action on the part of a Government supported by a majority.


John Horton McDermid: Say it again.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I want to make the observation that everyone publicly agrees that there are many good reasons for conflict of interest guidelines. The Prime Minister has spoken in very high terms on why there should be guidelines for Cabinet Ministers. He has mentioned this in the House and repeated it outside the House. In addition, all Hon. Members on this side of the House fully subscribe to that view. It is fundamental, going to the roots of the faith we have in our

March 21, 1983
Supply
elected officials, the way in which they conduct official business and the way mistakes are dealt with if they are covered up by the Opposition or, indeed, by the press.
The fact is that if there are weaknesses in that system of guidelines, then it is incumbent on us, as Members of the House of Commons, to consider in a committee of the House ways in which these guidelines can be made more effective. Let me just make a couple of points as to why we should have these guidelines and where they are defective.
They are defective, as I see it, on the basis of debate which has taken place, particularly as they relate to former office holders. One reason is that we have seen instances of communications, of dealings between former office holders, former Cabinet Ministers, and their former Departments. I mention a couple only by way of examples, not that I am trying to make this a personal reference. However, the fact is that these are cases in point.
Mr. Donald Macdonald was Minister of Finance before his resignation. The guidelines stated that there should be no dealings with one's former Department for a two year period. Within a period of two years of his resignation, Mr. Donald Macdonald was placed on the Board of Directors of the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, which was involved in negotiating the fighter aircraft contract with the federal Government. A major player in the negotiations with respect to the awarding of that contract was the Department of Finance. What was wrong with Members of the Opposition at that time raising questions as to whether there was a breach of the conflict of interest guidelines respecting a former office holder?
In the case of Alastair Gillespie, which we have recently gone through, a similar situation obtained. There is no question as to the facts. Mr. Gillespie was in touch with his former Department, clearly dealing with Government assistants in putting his promotion through, which led him to a profit situation. He profited from the transaction. He profited from moneys being paid to the consortium. I do not draw any conclusion. I am only saying that these are former office holders who have clearly, on the face of it, breached the conflict of interest guidelines.
We asked the Prime Minister what he could do about the situation. The Prime Minister said he could do nothing. The question is very simple: what should we be doing? Should we review the situation as to how to handle breaches of the conflict of interest guidelines by former office holders? The answer to any reasonable observer of the scene should be, yes, there should be an opportunity to look at them.
The second consideration may well be this: is it good enough under the present circumstances for the matter to be left completely at the discretion of the Prime Minister whenever there is an allegation or charge made of conflict of interest breaches? The Prime Minister and the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan), who started off for the Government side on this motion, argue that that is the way our system works, it is the way it should be, and it should be left
with the Prime Minister to decide whether there have been any breaches and what action should be taken with respect to current office holders.
These same arguments were used with respect to the whole concept of freedom of information, the concept that the Government will be judged on its actions as to whether it releases information to the public, that if people are unhappy with the way the Government deals with the matter, they will vote against it. In every election there is an opportunity for Canadians to exercise their franchise with respect to how the Government operated while in power. It was only after very diligent pursuit by the Opposition that the Government finally agreed to the concept of an independent judicial or quasijudicial officer who would be able to pass judgment as to whether or not Government documents would be released to the citizens of this country.
This is an analogous situation. It is something that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections could consider. Do we now require an independent officer who can receive complaints with respect to conflict of interest situations and have the full power and ability, quite independently of the Government, to investigate those charges?
What is wrong with that kind of situation, analogous as it is to the freedom of information legislation? There is nothing wrong with it. I find a growing feeling among the public that the time has now come to have a very close review of the guidelines and the sanctions available or not available, as well as the question of whether legislation should or should not be introduced.
What can be wrong, after an experience of some ten years following the time when the matter was first raised, for a standing committee to be given the authority to review what is happening? I direct my remarks to the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) because he raised these questions in an earlier part of this debate. I will give him some examples of questions that could be considered by the Standing Committee on Elections and Privileges.
First, should there be an independent quasi-judicial official established by legislation to deal with these matters? Second, what are the sanctions that can be applied in terms of former office holders if they do breach the guidelines? Third, should we consider legislation to deal with sanctions that should take place if there is a breach of the guidelines by current office holders? That will be a fairly full plate for any standing committee. It is germane and legitimate.
As I indicated, this debate follows an episode which, in my opinion, can only be described as a flagrant breach of the Prime Minister's own guidelines. I referred earlier to Donald Macdonald, Alastair Gillespie and Judd Buchanan who was involved in dealings with the Banff National Park. It involved negotiations with Treasury Board of which he was President, and it was within a two-year period. I am not charging any illegality, but the guidelines say that there should be no perception of preferred access or treatment with Government Departments by a former office holder.
March 21, 1983

How could any of us, or in fact any citizen of Canada, have these matters addressed? The only way for them is to write to the Prime Minister and say they think it is wrong. If the Prime Minister replies that he has considered the matter and does not agree with them, that is the end of it under the present system. Do Members on the Government side understand that this is not a question of partisanship, a question of the Liberal Party versus the Conservative Party or New Democratic Party?
Circumstances change. Indeed, it is my expectation, based on the very sound advice I get from the people of Canada, that after the next election, the Conservatives will be sitting on the Government side and the Liberals will be sitting here. That does not make the argument any less relevant. In fact, it is more relevant. We should be accountable. The highest standards should apply to any Government in which I serve. I say that regardless of which side of the House we are on.
There are other examples of cases that have arisen with respect to former office holders in particular. I will not name them. Quite apart from the situation that we have, there is some serious question about the activities of current office holders.
It is time to look at where we are going in terms of morality in Government, the question of whether a Government can, with impunity, reward its friends through a system of turning the other cheek when former office holders come back to deal with their former Departments. That time has long since passed. The people of Canada will not tolerate that kind of activity. They want Parliament to address this matter. There are no names attached to this motion. It allows the committee to deal with the matter in a very dispassionate way in order to see exactly what steps should be taken.
There have been other examples of committees of this House which have worked very well. The Select Committee on Procedure and Organization is doing an excellent job. It is now attempting to bring our rules up to date to suit these modern times. It is acting as a group, considering what should be done, and making representations and recommendations to the House. The same can be said for the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. This motion would allow that Committee to see what we should be doing in terms of conflict of interest. Indeed, it would be following a fine tradition.
Some ten years ago we had the consent of the whole House to refer this same said subject matter to the Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary who spoke before me was in the House at that time and his name is recorded in the vote on that issue. We did not hear him stand up at that time to say to Mr. Sharp, the then Government House Leader, that he did not agree with him because he thought it was a shoddy business and might affect the reputation of some members of Cabinet. At that time he said "ready, aye, ready", as did all Liberals. He did not say anything in the House.
I do not understand why Government Members who have supported the concept of more power for individual Members of Parliament do not take advantage of the offer now being made available to them. It would make this House, both Members and Cabinet Ministers, more accountable for their
Supply
actions. They could speak independently rather than under the threat of the Government whip. They have the suggestion of the House Leader of the NDP who said he was prepared to move with unanimous consent to have this matter regarded as a non-confidence motion.
I would like simply to deal with a couple of aspects with respect to the background of this matter in order to make abundantly clear what has transpired in the history of this matter, so there can be no misunderstanding as to where we are today in terms of parliamentary history in Canada. Hon. Members will remember that on July 17, 1973, a statement was made by the President of the Privy Council, the present Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs, with respect to conflict of interest of Members of Parliament when he tabled a Green Paper entitled, "Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest". On July 18, 1973, the Prime Minister made a statement regarding conflict of interest in relation to Cabinet Ministers, at which time he urged the House to consider this matter through reference to committee, indicating his intention to bring forward conflict of interest guidelines at that time with respect to Cabinet Ministers. On December 18, 1973, the Prime Minister made a further statement on guidelines for public servants and Order in Council appointees. On December 9, 1974, the then President of the Privy Council, the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, had an agreement with the Opposition House Leaders, through a proposed special order, relating to the allotted day of December 10, 1974, on conflict of interest. The proposal received unanimous consent of the House. That motion, Mr. Speaker, was identical, couched in absolutely identical terms, to the one we are now debating today. So that December 10, 1974, was the allotted day under Standing Order 58(10), when the Green Paper was referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and the Committee was asked to make recommendations with respect to Ministers and conflict of interest and public servants and conflict of interest. The wording is identical. The motion was adopted by all Parties of the House.
On June 10, 1975, the Chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, Mr. Speaker, yourself, that is to say the present occupant of the Chair, presented a fifth report to the House of Commons endorsing the principles set forth in the Green Paper and recommending the proposal, subject to amendments in the fifth report.
The committee sat from February 20, 1975 to June 4, 1975. In July, 1976 the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee made a report to that body. On June 26, 1978, Bill C-62 was introduced in the House and given first reading. On October 16, 1978, Bill C-6, the Independence of Parliament and Conflict of Interest of Senators and Members of the House of Commons Act, was introduced at first reading. It was the revised Bill C-62. On March 8, 1979, Bill C-6 received second reading.

March 21, 1983
Supply
That is the chronology, Mr. Speaker. As we stand now, the matter has never been resolved with respect to the whole question of conflict of interest. It is still a current topic which is extant, still before us, never finally resolved, and is a matter which I believe this Committee, indeed, should take seriously.
As there was willingness in 1974 to deal with this issue, let there be willingness again today. It is a subject of immense importance to Parliament and Parliamentarians, for if this House is to have any meaning or any relevancy, it must be able to scrutinize the executive and draw the rules under which Ministers of the Crown conduct their affairs. As I have indicated before, today it affects Liberal Ministers; tomorrow it will be Ministers from this side of the House. In that sense, when it comes before Committee it will not be a particularly partisan issue, but undoubtedly will be treated with the same degree of concern and co-operation as the current committee on parliamentary reform. We on this side of the House have again sacrificed another Opposition Day to this issue, as we did in 1974, and I urge Government Members to accept this motion as we have presented it today.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who has just spoken is a Member of the select Committee on Procedure and Organization, as he has indicated, and, therefore, is very well aware of the Standing Orders of this House. I believe it is quite appropriate to put the question to him since the motion proposed today has been proposed under Standing Order 62(9), dealing with nonconfidence motions, and since Standing Order 62(9) clearly states:
On the last day appointed for proceedings on a no-confidence motion-
The vote shall be proceeded with forthwith. If the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West is sincere, and if the other speakers from his Party who preceded him are sincere, why did they not put today's motion under Standing Order 62(11)?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question because it gives me an opportunity again to reiterate a point which I made. First, we attempted through the Question Period and other opportunities to get the agreement of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to have this reference to the Committee made without the necessity of a debate on an allotted day.
Second, this motion was brought forward in reaction to a refusal by the Government, and it was the only method which we had as the Official Opposition to indicate our strong feelings that the Government was wrong and that it was a matter of confidence, as far as we were concerned, because it was so serious.
Third, we did not propose that the House agree. We did not initiate the proposal that the House agree by unanimous consent to waive the motion under Standing Order 62(9). Indeed, it was the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) who stood in his place on a point of order and asked the House for a waiver of that particular rule for the purposes of this debate. At that time there was quick consultation by Hon. Members of this side of the House. Our House Leader, the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis),
stood on behalf of the Conservative Party and said that we were prepared to agree to the proposal put by the Leader of the NDP. It was then up to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), who refused that unanimous consent, as well as the Minister of State for International Trade, who was the first Government speaker.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, whatever agreement was made, we have a Standing Order, and the Standing Order is quite clear. On Friday of last week, the Official Opposition decided to pursue today's proceedings under Standing Order 62(9). Whatever the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) might have suggested, it was not he who was responsible for proposing today's motion under Standing Order 62(9). That was the choice of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I repeat again, if that Party was sincere in what it was saying today, why was today's motion not proposed under Standing Order 62(11)?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak at cross purposes. I am trying to deal squarely and precisely with the question raised by the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil. The point is this: this is the final Opposition day in this period of supply. We were obliged to bring forward the motion under that rule because it did require a vote.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Why?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is the last opportunity in a supply period. That is a technicality which we, as it turned out, on the suggestion on the New Democratic Party, were quite prepared to overlook and not hold the Government to confidence on this particular vote. There are other opportunities where we will pursue our right to bring the Government down. In this instance, we thought the matter would be of such importance and of such relevance and of such a non-partisan nature, we were prepared to accept and agree with the proposal made by the Leader of the NDP.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, just to conclude this point, Standing Order 62(9) says:
-not more than two Opposition motions shall be no-confidence motions against the Government.
Therefore, the Opposition has the choice to let one nonconfidence motion go. Today's motion did not need to be called under 62(9).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: oppose this most reasonable motion, as many of his colleagues can, and let the matter go through and we will have an election. But we do not want to cause him that trouble. We want the matter dealt with, and that is why we are doing what we are doing today and being very reasonable to boot.


Denis Éthier: Mr. Speaker, they repeat and repeat all day that we can vote for this motion and that would not be considered a vote of confidence. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), said, you could have introduced the motion as other than a vote of confidence. But you chose to do it this way, and 1 think you have been misleading Canadians all day. I asked a while ago if Hon. Members were sincere in their motion. I would ask them now if they are honest in that motion. Tell the Canadian people exactly what it is. In voting for the motion, you are voting to defeat the Government. It is a vote of confidence. Say it in those terms. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) is saying it is.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We are not voting to defeat the Government. We will defeat you on the Estimates.


Denis Éthier: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is saying the same.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I do not have a blackboard because I would like to put it down in writing. If anyone over there is listening and able to understand simple logic, what we are saying in the proposal put forward is that we can accomplish anything with unanimous consent. As a former Deputy Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary knows that. By unanimous consent we can agree to anything in any procedure we want to. What has happened is that an opportunity was proposed by the NDP, agreed to unanimously by Members of the Official Opposition, for this motion to not be a vote of confidence. A vote would be taken, and if the motion was carried, it would not be considered a vote of confidence in the Government.
1 just want to explain one more thing. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember, because he was sitting in his place watching all this, that much to my surprise and probably to the surprise of thousands of Canadians who were watching, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs refused to give unanimous consent, as did the Minister of State for International Trade. It was not indeed anyone on this side of the House, but rather Government Members themselves who refused the opportunity of carrying on with this vote so it would not be a vote of confidence. We did our best, we tried to make it easy for Members on the Government side, but unfortunately their leaders have let them down again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) in debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, no.
Supply


Mr. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, they are going to like what I am going to say because this motion is a motherhood statement, and everyone knows that. Please do not tell me that anyone in this House would dare vote against this mouthful of motherhood. Just listen to it, Mr. Speaker:
That the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be authorized to consider and make recommendations upon the subject-matter of Ministers and conflict of interest; and public servants and conflict of interest.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask you who in his right mind, what self-respecting Parliamentarian could be against that particular mouthful of motherhood?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You are.


Roger Simmons: I am. I am against it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You are not self respecting.


Roger Simmons: I will tell you why I am against it, Mr. Speaker. It is because I know a Trojan horse when I see one, even a clumsily built Trojan horse. I can recognize even a poorly crafted Trojan horse when I see one.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Did one kick you in the arm?


Roger Simmons: This motion gives itself away, Mr. Speaker, by its very simplicity and sweet innocence. The whole purpose of the motion, we are told, is to have a nice, civil, academic exercise about conflict of interest as it relates to Ministers and public servants. Do they think we are too green to burn over here, Mr. Speaker? Do they really expect us to believe that elementary nonsense? That clumsy obfuscation, that transparent doubletalk from the Tories today, do they really expect us to believe that?
Now, who is the author of this motion, Mr. Speaker? Who is the carpenter foreman who built this Trojan horse? None other than the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen), the Hon. Member for Yukon. The kneecapper. Old "kneecapsen" himself. We know his record in this House, his self-appointed smear assignment, his lifelong crusade to undermine, to drag in the mud, to tear to shreds the good reputation of any who dare to call themselves Liberals. That in his eyes is their crime, their only crime. The only required crime. We are asked to believe that the Hon. Member for Yukon crafted this innocent sounding motion for innocent reasons. Of that, Mr. Speaker, he is totally incapable. He is totally incapable of crafting this motion for innocent reasons. That would be absolutely out of character for the Hon. Member for Yukon. Let us see this motion for what it is, for what the Leader of the Opposition intends it to be, a licence to conduct another witchhunt, to unleash the venom, the bile of the Hon. Member for Yukon in the guise of a study by a parliamentary committee.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I for one will not give him consent to do that. I will not acquiesce. I will not aid and abet his vicious and voracious appetite for jugulars. If he has charges to make, let him make them like a man. 1 invite him to contain his invective. I appeal to him to put a lid on his cowardly and unprinci-paled innuendo.

March 21, 1983
Supply


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Roger Simmons: I appeal to him to stop the low theatrics and to allow the legitimate work of this House to proceed. What the Opposition is asking for in this motion is a kangaroo court.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Payola to continue.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What have you got against Australians?


Roger Simmons: I cannot oblige the Opposition's request because I do not believe in kangaroo courts and I will not be part of one. I tell the Leader of the Opposition and his merry band over there that the lynch mobs went out over a century ago. They may want to turn back the clock a hundred years or more but they cannot expect my blessing to do so.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the most touching moment today was when the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) decided to participate in the debate. Old sweet innocence himself, the Hon. Member for Joliette. This is the same fellow who said, when he was in Government in 1979, that he would see to it that the Tories would get all the gravy. He would see to it that the Tories got preferred treatment. He would ensure-and he said this publicly because I have the clipping if someone would like to check my facts-that the Tories in Quebec got all the Government goodies. Today, Mr. Speaker-he stands for impartiality. He is on the side of truth and fairness today. He is on the side of academic purity. How perfectly touching. How completely heart-rending.
Now, Mr. Speaker, who is this honourable crowd, these crusading Tories who are suddenly seized by a concern for conflict of interest guidelines? Who are they? They include my good friend, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). When he was Minister in the Government of 1979 he told his Prime Minister publicly that he could not live with the guidelines.


John Horton McDermid: But he did.


Roger Simmons: He said he had no intention of doing so. He stuck by his word and did not live by them.


Some Hon. Members:: He did.


An Hon. Member:: Who are they?


Roger Simmons: My good friend, the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) may not like the truth, but I would ask him to check the record. I have the clippings. The Hon. Member for St. John's West said he would not abide by the guidelines, and did not do so.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member is deliberately misleading the House. The Hon. Member for St. John's West in fact-


Mr. Pinard:: Withdraw that.


John Horton McDermid: -did live by the guidelines.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I thought the Hon. Member rose on a point of order to question the issue of parliamentary language. Unfortunately, if that was his intention, he began his comments with unparliamentary language as well.
It is with regret that I have to advise the Hon. Member that he should withdraw the expression "deliberately misleading". I shall then recognize him for the point of order.


John Horton McDermid: Thank you for the correction, Mr. Speaker. I do withdraw those words, but the Hon. Member is misleading the House. The Hon. Member for St. John's West did in fact live by the guidelines.


Roger Simmons: As you will clearly see, Mr. Speaker, it is my word against that of the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown.


John Horton McDermid: It is your word against the record.


Roger Simmons: Perhaps we could leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, because that speaks for itself.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Tell us where he broke the guidelines.


Roger Simmons: These crusaders for the conflict of interest rules include my good friend, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), who also said publicly at the time that he was going to have real difficulty living by the guidelines.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: But he did.


Roger Simmons: Those crusaders include the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) who had some real reservations about the guidelines.


John Horton McDermid: But he did live by them.


Roger Simmons: Those same crusading Tories who are now seized with concern for conflict of interest guidelines, a concern they have come to very lately


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Oh, no!


Roger Simmons: -include my good friend, the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), who said publicly at the time that he would have to rethink his whole commitment to public life if he were to be obliged to live by the guidelines brought in by the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) who was then the Prime Minister. These are some of the people-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Who live by those guidelines.


Roger Simmons: -who today want to point fingers. The jig is up, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) to compare notes with the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who spent the last 20 minutes of what was, for the most part, a very good speech, saying that he was all for sweet innocence, for a non-partisan approach. He said that finger-pointing was not part of his approach. The Hon.
March 21, 1983

Member for Mississauga South has just said, for the record, that he is for finger-pointing.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: At you.


Roger Simmons: He is for looking for skeletons in closets and is for dragging them out in public. He is for conjuring up wrongdoings.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Tell us where they broke the guidelines, you muckraker.


Roger Simmons: If the Hon. Member for Mississauga South does not agree with me, then 1 am pleased. The day I say things that he agrees with I will be in deep, deep trouble.
My good friend from Saskatoon West gave what I thought was a rather good speech. Although I do not agree with many of the points he made, I listened with interest to what he had to say. He said that this is not a partisan issue for him. That is the calibre of man that makes this House worth-while. Even behind a hideous motion such as this there are people like him who are prepared to divorce themselves from finger-pointing and skeleton-hunting. He is prepared to say what really is on his mind. I think it took great courage for the Hon. Member to divorce himself from the despicable intent of the motion.
For the record, he said that he was not for a partisan approach to this particular subject. Where was he during the past month or so when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) was doing exactly that? In very partisan fashion he was off on another of his search and destroy missions. That Hon. Member had few qualms about whether the issue was going to be partisan or not. Once again we find that the Tory Party embraces so many different points of view-those who are for something and those who are against something, those who like finger-pointing and those who do not. It is a great Party. I would not want to belong to it, though.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No chance!


Roger Simmons: They can hold the invitation, Mr. Speaker. I am not going over there. They can hold their breath.
I say to the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West that his professed naivete on this motion does him no credit at all. While he spoke from a sincere heart saying that he did not want the partisan approach, he should realize that he is surrounded by a bunch of professional with-hunters. They have spent so much time in opposition that they are not comfortable unless they are calling others names or impugning the reputation of someone. As long as they can make charges and use innuendo or invective, they never let the facts stand in the way of an accusation.
We are spending another whole day on this when thousands of Canadians are looking to us to address the job situation in the country. But the Tories are playing the same old, tired game. They are hallucinating again about skeletons in closets. Such hallucinating, such spiteful daydreaming, such clumsy plotting does nothing about the real problems in the country. There are the problems of the unemployed, the problems of housing needs, the problems of poverty, and they are passing
Supply
up the opportunity to do something about these things. Their priorities are as badly mixed up today as they were in Winnipeg. They would rather hunt skeletons than solutions.
The old lynch-mob approach to politics and to life went out a long time ago in this country-except for the Tory Party. There it is alive and well, as the Hon. Member for Yellowhead must know. Because they have practised dissecting people in their own Party, is that justification enough for the country as a whole to be subjected to the same kind of despicable performance day in and day out? Do they have an over-all objective? Is there something that motivates them other than hate? Is there something that keeps them ticking, other than a passion to destroy or drag people's reputation in the mud? Do they all get their jollies from contriving some new and warped way to destroy innocent people?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Name one.


Roger Simmons: Name one what? Name one person who gets his jollies from impugning reputations? The Hon. Member for Mississauga South is one.


An Hon. Member:: Joe Clark.


Roger Simmons: I could name others. Is he talking about victims or assailants?
I realized that this would be a very sensitive subject for the Tories. I realized that they did not expect the people of Canada to see through the device of a very simplistic, motherhood, butter-melt-in-your-mouth type of motion or resolution which says, "let us have another committee, let us look at conflict of interest guidelines, let us see how they apply to Ministers and to public servants". Mr. Speaker, you have to take off your hat to the kneecapper, the Hon. Member for Yukon. He was able to restrain himself for a sufficient period of time to craft that fun-loving motion, but we know him too well. We have seen too often his performance in this particular House. It is always the same. If you understand the real intent of this motion, Mr. Speaker, you have to see it as a Trojan horse and you have to realize that the Hon. Member for Yukon was just proceeding to the next step in his ever vicious campaign, a campaign which he carried on in Question Period for the last few weeks while ignoring the problems of the country.
There was not a question for a week and a half in Question Period, for an hour a day, day in and day out, week after week, about a single item of concern-about the poor, the unemployed or the elderly of the country; about the economic situation generally. There was not a whit of concern because he was on a witch-hunt. Now somebody has said to him in caucus one day, "You had better package it differently. You are looking too transparent." People are beginning to say to us Tories as we go back to our ridings, "When will you get back on the problems of the economy?"


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is not what they are saying.

March 21, 1983
Supply


Roger Simmons: Then they came up with this simplistic device today-a motherhood motion, a Trojan horse, a weak, transparent attempt once more to mislead the people of the country. There they are, all seven, eight or nine of them over there- eight and a half anyway-who have dragged themselves into the House this afternoon to support this great crusade for purity once again! I want them to know that they do not have the market cornered on purity. I tell them that the last thing the House needs right now is another academic exercise. I would like to get on with the business of the House. Why do we not do that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, answers and comments. Is the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) rising upon questions and answers during the ten-minute exchange?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: No, to make a speech, Mr. Speaker. There is no one else rising.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair will wait a moment to determine if there are others rising on questions and answers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Who wants to ask him a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am not sure which Hon. Member made the comment, but 1 would think that the House vests the requirement in the Chair that it is its responsibility to determine whether or not there are questions and answers during the ten-minute period. I certainly do not mind advice, but I would like any Hon. Member who seeks to advise the chair to have the courtesy to rise and do so on his feet. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, am I being recognized for debate, for the purpose of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: My apologies. I think I now see the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary on the questions and answers section.


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) just a moment ago and I must say as a-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What is the question?


Brian Vincent Tobin: I will put my question, but I will make the same kind of preface as do Hon. Members opposite. I will make a quick comment. As a first-time elected Member of Parliament, one who came here with great expectations and one who was taught immediately that I was part of a-and I am not talking in a partisan sense, but in the sense of service to the country- very unique club. By that I do not mean this caucus; I mean the House. I must say that I found my bubble has not been burst, but it has been a discouraging experience for me these last weeks to see the kind of practice and approach which has
been exercised opposite by Members, who as my Hon. colleague and friend from Newfoundland so aptly put it, are in the business of kneecapping rather than in the business of representing the needs, the concerns and the voice of the people of Canada in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: What is the question?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Sometimes one must yell to be heard. I understood that I would be allowed a comment first. Am I allowed a comment? May I carry on?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I want to remind all Hon. Members that it is not an issue of whether there is a question, answer, debate or comment. The new reformed procedures of the House of Commons refer to "short and sharp questions, answers and comments". My concern in the chair is not as to whether it is identified as a question, a comment or an answer, but rather that it be short and sharp. A good indication of short and sharp would be taken as 90 seconds.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the clock and trying to gauge it. With these new rules we need a second-hand on the clock. It is very difficult to see 90 seconds from here.
My question is quite a serious one which I put to the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons). I ask him, because, obviously he has taken a great deal of time and a great deal of sincerity in looking at the motion put today, whether he can even conceive of one positive thing being accomplished by it. The Hon. Member has a reputation of having a balanced view; he is one of those individuals who will always explore in great depth every side of an issue, so I know he has looked hard at this motion-45 seconds and counting, Mr. Speaker. Can he conceive of one positive thing being accomplished by having this kind of motion accepted by the House?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Yes or no?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there is a positive side of this particular motion. I was remiss, really, in making my remarks to the House and not pointing out what is the positive side of this motion. Clearly the positive side of it is that it allows the people of Canada to see the Opposition for what it is. I believe this afternoon that anyone who has watched this particular debate with all the rhetoric of Members of the Opposition-and I must exclude my good friend, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West because he gave what was a courageous speech and dissociated himself from the motion in many ways; he is the only one I heard doing that- will see the charade which the Conservative Opposition is carrying on. If we serve that purpose, at least we spent some worth-while time this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill on a point of order.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: No, I am rising to participate in the debate, Mr. Speaker, but it is obvious the Government does not intend
March 21, 1983

to allow me to have my opportunity to speak. That is why we have trained seals like the Member from Newfoundland getting up to ask another Member from Newfoundland a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I had the floor, Mr. Speaker; I had the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have no difficulty-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Nobody else was standing, Mr. Speaker, and I rose to debate; then we had this idiot getting up here and asking-
Sonie Hon. Members: Right on.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is an absolutely disgusting show of one Liberal asking another a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I think the best contribution I could make to the House at the moment-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The best contribution I could make at the moment is to attempt to put aside what are remarks being made across the floor and are not officially coming to the Chair. I want to explain something to Hon. Members. There is no question but that the Chair is obligated under the Standing Orders to recognize any Member who rises on questions, answers and debate during the ten-minute period, regardless whether that Member comes from the same Party as the previous member.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: And no one did.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I have applied that rule since January 1 and unless I receive instructions otherwise from the House of Commons, I shall continue to apply them.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Biaikie) was recognized by the Chair as he was beginning to stand up. I think I was reasonable when I suggested that I saw another Member at that very moment rising during the ten-minute question period. 1 understand the difficulty of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill and I understand the difficulty of any other Member who may feel time is going by and they are being denied the opportunity to speak. That is a political issue. As a procedural issue, I will continue to recognize any Hon. Member who rises on questions, answers and comments during the ten-minute period. May I recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill in that regard?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is rising on a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will not be long because I want to hear the Hon. Member opposite. I
Supply
want to say that when the Hon. Member exploded with the little bit of poison that spurted across the way-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I do not blame him.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -I was rising to leave the House.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Well, why don't you leave?


Brian Vincent Tobin: I want to say to the Hon. Member that it is obvious by his explosion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. That is precisely-


Brian Vincent Tobin: -that he has the same respect for the rules-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I would like the Hon. Member to sit down. That is precisely what I do not want to hear as a point of order. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, if there is no one rising on a question, may I speak to the debate? In my view, this is what I could have done some time ago.
The Liberals have made a point this afternoon, I think, of missing the thrust of the motion. They presented us with two very different Catch 22s. If there is a general motion, then they say there is something terrible behind it. If it is a specific motion, it would be muckraking. The second Catch 22, Mr. Speaker, is that Liberals cannot accept the motion because it is a motion of non-confidence. On the other hand, there is no other way that we could bring it before the House except in this form. Now that it is in the House in this form and we ask the unanimous consent for it not to be regarded in the form they object to, they refuse unanimous consent. Therefore, we have a couple of convenient Catch 22s operating in favour of the Government, which, as far as I am concerned, pushes us back upon the larger question of confidence. This is the question I was hoping to speak to this afternoon but which cannot be dealt with in the short time frame. One of the reasons it cannot be dealt with, so I will not even try at this point, is the fact that my time has been used up by a Member of the Liberal Party asking another Member of the Liberal Party a question-which I quite admit is within the rules of the House of Commons and is within the rules as set up in the experiment, but I contend the quality of the question was such that it constituted an abuse of the rules because it was quite clear they were simply trying to use up time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) is rising on a point of order.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, as I am, is a member of a committee which recommended to this House that we ought to have 20 minute speeches followed by a ten-minute intervention from various

March 21, 1983
Supply
Members. My friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Tobin), carefully waited until there was no one from other Parties to rise, and he then rose.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I was standing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. There are seconds remaining. If the Hon. Member wishes to make a point of order, I would ask that he do that immediately.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill does not have the right to question the quality of questions put during the ten-minute question period-


Walter David Baker: But the public does.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -especially when the quality was so high.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I consider it appropriate for Hon. Members to comment on exchanges that take place during the question and answer period. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, there is no time left. What happened between those two Liberal Members of Parliament who used up the time in which I had hoped to make some helpful comments is an example of why we have to move these kinds of motions and why the whole bunch on the other side are so corrupt that they are beyond redemption.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more to say.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: Withdraw or resign.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair is having some difficulty. I wonder whether the snow storm is responsible for this, but I have to explain to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill that it is considered to be unparliamentary language to use the word "corrupt". I will give consideration as to whether or not I should make a request that he withdraw it immediately. I think the easier way would be if perhaps the Hon. Member would take another moment and withdraw that word. That would be helpful. Otherwise, in due course, I will have to make a ruling.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert on what constitutes unparliamentary language. But 1 referred to Members on the other side collectively, as a bunch. I did not refer to the character of any individual Member of Parliament. I stand by my description of the Liberal Party and its Government.


Walter David Baker: That is not unparliamentary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: May I point out to Hon. Members that by an order made earlier the House is now expected to consider the question before it. Is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans rising to contribute to a point of order on the word "corrupt"?


Brian Vincent Tobin: No, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case, I thank the Hon. Member. I believe we should proceed as follows. Over the evening and tomorrow, I will consider the use of the word, and I will take counsel in that regard. It is possible that other Hon. Members may wish to contribute. I would suggest that that be done tomorrow. At this point I ought to put the question before the House. Accordingly, it being 5.45 p.m. it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 62(10), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of Supply.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion negatived.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 2c, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Herb Gray (President of Treasury Board) moved:: That Vote 2c, in the amount of $816,400 under the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-Metric Commission-Operating expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions amongst House Leaders and I believe you will find that if you were to put the question on the first item and have the division recorded on that item, and then put items Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9, you will find there is a general disposition among the Parties to apply the division taken on item 1 to the subsequent six items, and that that division be recorded in Hansard on each of the items Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9. Thus Members will avoid having to rise that many times.


Madam Speaker:: That will be very helpful.
The question is on motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: We will dispense with the bells at all times.


Madam Speaker:: The motion is carried and this vote applies to motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 and should be reported thus in Hansard.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 3c, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That Vote 3c, in the amount of $4,500,000 under the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-Metric Commission-Contributions, in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, be concurred in.
The House divided on the motion wich was agreed to on the
following division:	(Division No. 306)	
Allmand	YEAS Messrs. Dupont	LeducAppolloni (Mrs.)	Dupras	LefebvreAxworthy	Duquet	LoiselleBachand	Eroia (Mrs.)	LumleyBaker	Ethier	MacBain(Gander-Twillingate)	Ferguson	MacEachenBeauchamp-Niquet	Fisher	MacGuigan(Mrs.)	Fleming	MackaseyBegin (Miss)	Flis	MacLellanBerger	Foster	MalepartBlais	Fox	MaltaisBlaker	Francis	MarceauBloomfield	Frith	MasseBockstael	Garant	MastersBossy	Gauthier	McRaeBreau	Gendron	MunroBujold	Gimaiel	(Hamilton East)Burghardt	Gingras	OlivierCaccia	Gourd	OstiguyCampbell (Miss)	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Ouellet(South West Nova)	Gourde	ParentCampbell	(Levis)	Pelletier(Cardigan)	Gray	PennerChenier	Guilbault	PepinCollenette	Harquail	PetersonComtois	Henderson	PinardCorbin	Herbert	PortelanceCorriveau	Hervieux-Payette	Prud'hommeCosgrove	(Mrs.)	ReidCote (Mrs.)	Hopkins	(Kenora-Rainy River)Cousineau	Hudecki	RobertsCullen	Irwin	RompkeyCyr	Isabelle	RooneyDaudlin	Ittinuar	RossiDawson	Johnston	RoyDe Bane	Joyal	Savardde Corneille	Kelly	SchroderDeniger	Killens (Mrs.)	SimmonsDcsmarais	Lachance	SmithDingwall	Lajoie	TessierDion	Lalonde	TobinDionne	Landers	Tousignant(Chicoutimi)	Lang	TrudeauDionne	Laniel	Turner(Northumberland-	Lapierre	WatsonMiramichi)	Lapointe	WeatherheadDuclos	(Beauce)	Whelan-128.Althouse	NAYS Messrs. Crouse	HamiltonAndre	Dantzer	(Qu'Appelle-MooseAnguish	Darling	Mountain)Baker	Deans	Hargrave(Nepean-Carleton)	Dick	HawkesBlackburn	Domm	HeesBlaikie	Ellis	HnatyshynBlenkarn	Elzinga	HowieBradley	Epp	HuntingtonBroadbent	Fennell	JarvisCardiff	Fraser	JelinekCarney (Miss)	Fretz	Jewett (Miss)Clark	Friesen	Kempling(Yellowhead)	Fulton	KilgourClarke	Gamble	King(Vancouver Quadra)	Gass	KnowlesCook	Greenaway	KorchinskiCooper	Gurbin	KristiansenCossitt (Mrs.)	Gustafson	LambertCrosby	Halliday	La Salle(Halifax West)	Lawrence
March 21, 1983

Supply
Messrs.
Lewis	Miller	Rose	Olivier	Prud'homme	SimmonsLewycky	Mitchell (Mrs.)	Sargeant	Ostiguy	Reid	SmithMacDonald (Miss)	Mitges	Schellenberger	Ouellet	(Kenora-Rainy River)	Tessier(Kingston and the Islands)	Munro	Scott	Parent	Roberts	TobinMacKay	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Pelletier	Rompkey	TousignantMalone	Murphy	Scott	Penner	Rooney	TrudeauManly	Murta	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Pepin	Rossi	TurnerMayer	Neil	Shields	Peterson	Roy	WatsonMazankowski	N ickerson	Siddon	Pinard	Savard	WeatherheadMcCain	Nielsen	Skelly	Portelance	Schroder	Whelan-128.McCuish	Nystrom	Speyer	McDermid	Oberle	Stewart	WAVS	McDonald (Ms.)	Ogle	Thacker	rN a i o	(Broadview-Green wood)	Orlikow	Towers	Messrs	McGrath	Parker	Vankoughnet	McKinnon	Patterson	Wright	Althouse	Gustafson	McKnightMcKnight	Riis	Young-105.	Andre	Halliday	McLeanMcLean	Roche	Anguish	Hamilton	McMillanMcMillan	Baker	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	Miller


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Motion No. 2 agreed to.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 6c, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That Vote 6c, in the amount of $1,028,134 under the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-Payment to Canada Post Corporation for special purposes, in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Motion No. 3 agreed to.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE Ic, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That Vote lc, in the amount of $140,000 under the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources-Administration-Program expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, be concurred
in.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 4 agreed to.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 31c, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That Vote 31c, in the amount of $900,000 under the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources-Energy-Payment to Canertech Inc. for the Ethanol from Cellulose Program, in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Motion No. 5 agreed to.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE lc, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That Vote lc, in the amount of $2,487,000 under the Department of Finance-Financial and Economic Policies-Program expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Motion No. 6 agreed to.

March 21, 1983
Supply


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10c, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That Vote 10c, in the amount of $14,973,382 under the Department of Public Works-Accommodation-Operating expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion agreed to. Motion No. 9 agreed to.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
[Stage Direction]
(C), 1983
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, laid upon the Table, Wednesday, March 2, 1983, except those items disposed of earlier this day and the items ruled out by the Chair, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.
[ Translation]


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that Bill C-145, an Act for granting to Her Majety certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1983, be read the first time and printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that Bill C-145, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1983, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blaker in the Chair.
Clause 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to on division.
Schedule agreed to on division.
March 21, 1983
[Stage Direction]
Clause 1 agreed to on division.
Preamble agreed to on division.
Title agreed to on division.
Roderick Blaker: Shall I rise and report the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Bill reported.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the Bill be concurred in.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.

Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that Bill C-146, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1984, be read the first time and be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Gray thereupon moved that Bill C-146, an Act granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1984, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Supply
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Blaker in the Chair.
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to on division.
Schedule A to E inclusive agreed to on division.
Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1 agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall the preamble carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Roderick Blaker: Shall the title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Roderick Blaker: Shall I rise and report the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Bill reported.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the Bill be concurred in.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. Bill read the third time and passed.
Madam Speaker:: It being past 6.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.34 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, March 22, 1983