1983-02-23

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, on the occasion of the 11th Baltic evening, recently sponsored by the Baltic Federation in Canada representing the Estonian Central Council in Canada, the Latvian National Federation in Canada, and the Lithuanian Canadian community, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) brought to the attention of the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 21, certain irregularities in dealing with the accreditation of Baltic Consuls by the Government of Canada.
These Baltic Federations represent loyal Canadians who have selected Canada as the land of their destiny. They have made significant contributions to the arts and culture of this country. They have added to the ranks of our professionals in the fields of engineering and medicine. They are loyal citizens, conscious of their responsibility to this country, and have responded to this responsibility with dedication and zeal.
I would like to add my concern that two members of the Baltic Federation, the Latvians and the Estonians, unlike the Lithuanians, have not been accorded an accredited status for their consuls. Giving accredited status to these Consuls would show Canada's appreciation for the role that the peoples of Baltic origin have played and are playing in the development and promotion of the homeland of their choice, Canada, and it would serve as a useful link with citizens in the land of their origin. I therefore would urge the Government to grant accredited status to a Latvian and Estonian Consul.


FINANCE
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, on April 21, 1982, there was a meeting in Toronto organized by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), the then Minister of Finance, and three Toronto Ministers. The invited guests were 14 businessmen. The Globe and Mail of April 22,
1982, reported that 13 out of the 14 businessmen rejected the MacEachen theory about wage and price controls.
Alastair Gillespie was one of the 14 businessmen who claimed to The Globe and Mail that Mr. MacEachen received a "resounding vote of confidence" from the businessmen. The Globe and Mail of April 24, 1982, reported that Robert Owen, President of the Toronto Real Estate Board, "... disagreed with Alastair Gillespie . . . that the businessmen gave Mr. MacEachen a resounding vote of confidence." The Globe and Mail of May 13, 1982, reported that John S. Dewar, Chairman of Union Carbide, denied that there was support for Mr. MacEachen's policies at that meeting. The Globe and Mail of July 10, 1982, reported that only one favoured MacEachen's policies.
Under the circumstances, Madam Speaker, one can easily ask was the Gillespie endorsement of the Minister's economic policies, as well as his false claim of universal endorsement by businessmen, a quid pro quo for the Deputy Prime Minister's endorsement of Mr. Gillespie's lucrative participation in the Scotia Coal Synfuels project? And is there any connection between Mr. Gillespie's enthusiasm for the Minister's ill-fated economic policies and the subsequent decision by the Government to proceed with further re-evaluation of financing of the Gillespie consortium?


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Gilbert A. Parent (Welland):: Madam Speaker, as the Member of Parliament for Welland and as Chairman of the National Liberal Caucus, I wish to state that the National Liberal Caucus deplores the allegations and insinuations about Cabinet Members made by the Opposition Parties during recent Question Periods in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gilbert Parent: The Caucus is particularly disturbed by the fanaticism of the Conservative Party interim Leader, Mr. Erik Nielsen, who, since his election-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Gilbert Parent: -to the House in 1957 has consistently resorted to character assassination as his only means of attacking the Liberals. The Caucus feels that Mr. Nielsen and those who follow-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!

February 23, 1983


Gilbert Parent: -his example should realize that when they try to score-


Madam Speaker:: I believe the Hon. Member does know that he must refer to Hon. Members by their constituencies.


Gilbert Parent: I thank you for the correction, Madam Speaker. The Caucus feels that the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), and those who follow his example, should realize that when they try to score political points at any price, especially at the price of character assassination, they discredit the entire parliamentary institution in the process. The National Liberal Caucus wishes to note that, despite some encouraging signs, such as lowering inflation and interest rates, the economic situation remains a serious problem. MPs from all Parties would be well advised to devote their energies to finding solutions to the problems which are affecting Canadians in their daily lives.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, in my opinion the handicapped are ill treated. For the past two years 1 have made numerous representations to the Government on behalf of the disabled persons of Canada. Today I make one further public representation to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), asking him to review the position of the disabled with regard to the Income Tax Act. In particular, I would like the Government to include provisions in the next budget which would offset the additional costs incurred by the working disabled by such things as equipment and clothing, and transportation to unserviced industrialized areas.
I am aware that recommendation 46 of "Obstacles" is currently under consideration. I urge the Government to include this recommendation in the next budget because I believe that it will improve the tenuous position of the partially disabled. The present legislation is so narrow in its interpretation that it openly discriminates against handicapped people, many of whom are members of the work force. These people contribute to society through their taxes and are not dependent on society to keep them.
We have a chance to atone for our past neglect. We have a chance in the next budget to lighten the daily burden carried by the disabled. I, therefore, encourage the Minister of Finance to put forth some practical legislation to overcome the key obstacles faced by disabled persons.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the President of the Liberal Party came out against Cruise missile testing in Canada by saying that it was only "the thin edge of the wedge". My statement deals with another thin edge which we have in the American nuclear weapons program, the buying and selling of enriched uranium between Atomic Energy of Canada and two nuclear weapons refineries in the U.S.A.
AECL's Chalk River laboratory is buying weapons-grade-enriched uranium from the U.S. Department of Energy's nuclear weapons refinery at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. When Chalk River is finished with this enriched fuel, it is sold and delivered to the Savannah River weapons reprocessing plant in South Carolina. AECL has no contractual obligation to sell and deliver this incredibly toxic irradiated fuel back into the U.S. weapons program.
In 1980 Canada signed a protocol with the United States under which the use of Canadian nuclear materials in the U.S. military program is forbidden, but Canada has continued to sell this material to the U.S. military.
Three U.S. States and approximately 40 U.S. municipalities have passed regulations to prevent AECL from shipping this irradiated poison through their areas, because a ten-second direct exposure to this material is lethal. Rather than listening to these people, AECL's shipper is fighting these regulations in the U.S. courts so that we can continue to sell Canadian uranium to the U.S. weapons program.
On behalf of the NDP and Canadians who do not want to be involved in the U.S. nuclear weapons cycle, I call upon the Government-


Madam Speaker:: Order.

[ Translation]


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Madam Speaker, if parliamentary immunity allows the Leader of the Official Opposition and Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to make accusations against Ministers of the Crown-and especially the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), whose integrity is well known-without being obliged to prove his case in public, according to the rules of a democratic society, this privilege is now being abused by the Member for Yukon in a manner that is an outrage to this Parliament.

y
February 23, 1983

According to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial, during which that person has had an opportunity to prevent his defence. During the past week, some very serious allegations have been made, challenging the integrity and honesty of several Members of Cabinet. Perhaps the Leader of the Official Opposition is making these malicious accusations because the Minister is doing his job too well.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in February of 1980, when he was the then Leader of the Opposition, undertook to urge the United States authorities to stop the pollution of the Niagara River. The Canada/U.S. task force recently reported that they had identified 300 polluters and that the international quality standards of the Great Lakes were being violated. Various substances have been found in the drinking water on which we have very little information.
The long-term solution to this environmental problem hinges on the outcome of a lawsuit initiated against Hooker Chemical with respect to the Love Canal. Environment Canada and this Government have refused to intervene in those court proceedings.
The presence of dioxin, the deadliest chemical known to man, has been detected for the first time in untreated lake water samples. That finding should finally provide the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) and the Prime Minister with sufficient cause to take more positive action now to protect the water supply of four million Canadians. Failure to do so simply leaves those Canadians as subjects of chemical experimentation. Can anything be more irresponsible?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, recently Bishop Rivera y Damas of El Salvador asked that the El Salvador government release its political prisoners when the Pope visits there, about March 6. There are reported to be about 700 political prisoners held by the El Salvador government.
When the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) visited Central America he spoke publicly about the desperate condition of many people who have incurred the hostility of the government of El Salvador. 1 understand that the Government of Canada is giving serious consideration to offering visas and asylum in Canada to political prisoners
Oral Questions
released by the Government of El Salvador. I urge Canadians to support such a decision.
It is also reported that the Government of El Salvador may release only some of its prisoners and, furthermore, that the political prisoners have decided that none will come out unless all are released. This is apparently a matter to be negotiated between the Government of El Salvador, the Bishop of El Salvador, and the political prisoners.
I urge the Government of Canada to consult with the Bishop of El Salvador in any selection of political prisoners to be released and given asylum in Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In his letter to the Deputy Prime Minister of April 28, 1980, the Prime Minister wrote as follows:
I am writing to bring to your attention the enclosed guidelines which establish the conflict of interest regime for Ministers and set the standards of conduct expected of them.
In the House on Monday the Deputy Prime Minister stated that the conflict rules as outlined by the Prime Minister "are only self-enforcing guidelines", that is, subject only to the conscience of the individual Minister. Does the Prime Minister regard the conflict of interest rules as binding on his Ministers or as only guidelines subject to the conscience of each Member of Cabinet?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, there is no contradiction between the two positions. They are binding on a Minister subject to his conscience.


Mr. Crosbie:: What conscience?


POSITION OF THREE MINISTERS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister says that they are binding on each and every one of his Ministers. Further to that letter of April 28, 1980, and the appendix to those guidelines or those rules, the Prime Minister stated as follows:
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.
Does the Prime Minister still hold the view that his Deputy Prime Minister, his Minister of Finance, and his Minister of State for Mines, have not given any appearance whatsoever of grounds for allegations of wrongdoing?

February 23, 1983
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I read the Hansard of the past two days attentively. It would seem to me that the discussion permitted the Deputy Prime Minister to make the points which I was attempting to make last week in other words, that there was no improper influence, that there was no privileged access, and that there was no preferential treatment.
How could there be privileged access when we know that under this energy agreement with the Province of Nova Scotia there have been some 13 enterprises, some receiving as much as $3 million, which have proceeded under this? There was no preferential access. This was one of 13 which had access to the policy of the Government, and which was carrying out the intention of the legislation and the policy.
As a matter of fact, how could we claim improper access, privileged access, when the former Minister, Mr. Gillespie, did not even see the Minister? He was not seeking that kind of privileged access. He was going down at the official level.
How can we claim that there was improper influence when, as the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out, the funds were under the control of the Government of Nova Scotia? The agreement said so quite clearly: "The money shall become the public money of the Province of Nova Scotia". That is written in the agreement between Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada. The $9.3 million, I think, is transferred to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Government of Nova Scotia. How can we claim there was improper influence?
As to the third element of the guidelines, preferential treatment, I think the facts have shown that, far from giving preferential treatment to the former Minister, there was, in a sense, discrimination against him because there was a reopening of the Treasury Board submission to ensure that none of the money which had been transferred from the Government of Canada to the Government of Nova Scotia would be available or payable to the former Minister.
So, in a sense, a special effort was made by the Department to ensure that there be no privileged treatment and no preferential treatment. It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that that is the substance of the matter.
Has there been some scandalous misconduct or not? I repeat the question asked by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday and the day before: has there been in substance anything done which a current Minister should not do and should not allow? My answers are no, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF FINANCE IN NOVEMBER, 1980
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Prime Minister's defence rests in part on the argument that no preferential treatment could be given because the Minister of Finance, the former
Minister of Energy, was not aware of Mr. Gillespie's involvement or, for that matter, of the project.
When speaking before the Special Committee on Alternate Energy and Oil Substitution on November 25, 1980, well within the two-year guideline, the Minister of Finance said, "I said that there are three projects on coal liquefaction. I would just like to stress there are two of them which involve Petro-Canada, so the national Government is directly involved in these initiatives". In view of those statements, does the Prime Minister really feel that Members of the House and the public can understand in any way that there is no appearance the Minister did not know and that, because of the defence that the Minister did not know, therefore no preferential treatment was given? Surely it is the opposite, that the Minister, being the type of person he is, would know and would be very much aware of what is happening in his own Department?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member refers to my answer he will see that I did not say that the Minister did not know. I said that there was no meeting between the Minister and Mr. Gillespie.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: As slippery as a sculpin.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member from St. John's is well qualified to speak as a skunk.


John Carnell Crosbie: I know a slippery sculpin when I feel one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, you should feel yourself and you would know who is slippery.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Your wit has deserted you; you left your wit in the Caribbean.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Deputy Prime Minister undertook on Monday, I believe, in the House, to ensure that all relevant documents would be tabled. The work has been going on. They have assembled the documents. I understand the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources wants to table those documents at three o'clock.
I also want to table correspondence between the Minister of Finance and myself, the letter in which he indicated that he had no knowledge of the transaction before September, 1981, and, more important and relevant to the discussion, a second letter which I received today indicating that a search of the files indicated that he had been informed of the transaction as early as January, 1981.
Appended to that second letter is a letter from the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources explaining that the file had been examined and that the information given to the Minister on which his first letter was based was erroneous. They had missed some memoranda. These memoranda have been uncovered. They will be tabled, and they led the Minister to write me a corrective statement.
February 23, 1983


STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF STATE (MINES) IN JUNE, 1981
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Prime Minister has just reasserted the statement he made last week in the House, that his Minister of Finance informed him that the first knowledge he had of these arrangements was in September, 1981.
My First question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. At page 10368 of Hansard for June 8, 1981, she laid out in detail the project that is the subject matter of this discussion which has been taking place here for several days. At the time that she explained the details of this project, the Minister of Finance, then the Minister of Energy, was in the House, and she gestured to him when referring to him in debate.
Will she tell us now whether, as she began her description of the project, that she did, in fact, refer to her colleague, mentioned his name and motioned to his seat where he was sitting at the time the Minister was explaining the details of this project? That was on June 8, 1981.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, it is very difficult for me to remember who was seated where. 1 cannot recall whether the Hon. Leader of the Opposition was in his seat at the time. I would assume if I gestured that the Member was in his seat, but 1 cannot swear to that at this moment.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, there are Members on this side who are prepared to do just that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Rossi:: How can you believe that?


Mr. Smith:: When are you going to get submissions?


KNOWLEDGE OF FORMER ENERGY MINISTER
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. As 1 reminded him, he told this House last Thursday that he was informed by his Minister of Finance that he heard of the arrangements for the first time on September 3, 1981, while the Minister of State for Mines admits that her memory might be faulty but that the Minister could well have been in his seat, namely, the Minister of Finance. I say that he was. I am asking the Prime Minister to tell us now whether he misled the House last Thursday or whether his Minister of Finance misled him when he told the Prime Minister that the first he had heard of this arrangement was on September 3, 1981?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to be destroying his reputation as being a fast mover on his feet. He is asking me if I
Oral Questions
misled the House. If the Hon. Member for Yukon had not been busy following his own prescripted scenario he would have listened to my previous answer. He was off in some other area preparing one of his dastardly attacks, Madam Speaker. I just told the House that the correspondence I would table at three o'clock indicated that indeed the former Minister of Energy knew of this transaction early in 1981.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: You misled the House.


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, why did the Prime Minister just now repeat what he said last Thursday, that his Minister of Finance had told him that the first time he, his Minister of Finance, had heard of this arrangement was on September 3, 1981? Why?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I repeated that in order to clear up the matter. If the Hon. Member had not stopped listening, he would have heard me say that I got a second letter from the Minister of Finance where he cleared that matter. But I realize I have to repeat things, not twice, but many times, to get through to the Hon. Member for Yukon.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PREMIER OF PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN
Madam Speaker:: Order, please. May I draw the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of the Premier of Saskatchewan, the Hon. Grant Devine.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows from a prepared Cabinet document submitted September 13, 1982 that the Synfuels project has an estimated real rate of return of minus 2 per cent. In other words, the project is a loser by the Government's own analysts. The Government document shows estimates of a much better rate of return, up to 18.5 per cent, for other upgrading projects, such as Canmet or Saskatchewan's heavy oil upgrad-er.

February 23, 1983
Ora! Questions
How is the Prime Minister able to defend the cutbacks and miserly expenditures on other vital energy programs in alternative energy and conservation while still considering an investment of up to $1 billion over five years in a Synfuels project, a project which the Minister of Energy's own Department describes as a loser?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am afraid that I cannot comment on that in substance. The Hon. Member is presumably quoting from a leaked document or a document of which 1 have no knowledge. I certainly would be happy to take notice of the question on behalf of the Minister of Energy, but it would seem to me that the logic of the Hon. Member is suggesting that anything which is not profitable should not be encouraged by the Government. He and many of his seatmates are constantly putting forward projects on the grounds that they create employment in the areas of the country which need special encouragement. That may well be so in this particular case.


Mark Willson Rose: We are in favour of employment projects all over the country. We came out in favour of the pipeline to Atlantic Canada. We want to make sure that the employment prospects are real and lasting. We do not want to get involved in any more of these megamenaces about which the Prime Minister is talking.


PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, we heard the Minister of State for Mines describing this thing yesterday as an exciting technological breakthrough for Canada and Canadians. The fact is that she was describing a fiasco which the Minister's own Department agreed was a fiasco. It may be what could be called the "Sting".
My supplementary question concerns "Sting, Part 2". The Minister told the House that the Cabinet is considering a further handout of $750,000 to the Gillespie consortium. That is what is before Cabinet. I am surprised that the Prime Minister is not aware of it. How can the Prime Minister tell us that no undue influence is being employed to make the Government of Canada consider further handouts to a group demanding a 21.4 per cent return on their investment in a project which was described by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources' own analysts as a sure loser?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not know of too many people in the private sector who like to get into sure losers. If they make a proposition which the Government of Canada, through its experts, and the Government of Nova Scotia, find worth while to encourage in terms of new technology, I suppose that is why both Governments have decided to try this new technology.
Once again, the point I was making was not to make a big case for mega projects, as he seems to understand. It was that this is a project put forward for an area of the country where there is high unemployment, where the people of the area
would be very happy to see new technology and high investment. I think that is the role at least that Members from Nova Scotia on this side should play to ensure their Province is given a chance. That is why the Government looked at it seriously.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER SEEK RESIGNATION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister's answers in response to my colleague from Provencher turned this matter around very substantially. The Prime Minister has now told the House that he has received letters from the Minister of Finance which indicate that the Minister of Finance has either lied or misled the Prime Minister in his first response as to whether he had any knowledge of this project.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I ask the Prime Minister, in light of his guidelines and in light of the revelation that the Minister of Finance has now indicated his full knowledge of the project, whether he will not now ask the Minister of Finance for his resignation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member asks me to demand the resignation of the Minister on the basis of my own guidelines. If he refers to my first answer in the House today and the many answers given by the Deputy Prime Minister and myself last week, he will see that we constantly referred back to the guidelines.
I do not think that the House would want me to repeat again exactly what I said on improper influence, privileged access, and preferential treatment, which are forbidden under the guidelines. I think that has just been described quite clearly, that there has been no improper influence. If there was, it was meted out through the Government of Nova Scotia which is the Government that holds the funds under the agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Come on!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If there was any privileged access, how could we explain that some 13 projects in all under this agreement have gone forward? Some of them were $3 million projects as opposed to the $1 million which was spent under this particular agreement, not to count all the agreements made with the eight other Provinces. There was no privileged access. It was access in the normal course by a consortium that wanted to follow this Government policy.
With respect to preferential treatment, I repeat that, if there was any, it was a discrimination against the former Minister by making sure that none of the funds could come his way. Any funds he received came from the other members of the consortium and not from the Government of Nova Scotia or the Government of Canada.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What the Prime Minister is telling the House now is that it is all right if you pay somebody indirectly

February 23, 1983
but do not pay them directly. If they are paid indirectly, no matter how that is done, it is quite satisfactory.


REITERATION OF REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, on two counts now, the Minister of Finance has either misled the Prime Minister or lied to him about his knowledge of this transaction in Cape Breton. On the basis that there was clear preferential treatment to a former Cabinet colleague well within the two years, I again ask the Prime Minister for the sake of honour and the sake of the parliamentary system-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -whether he is now going to ask for and obtain the resignation of the Minister of Finance.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, on the matter of honour, I would like to know why the Hon. Member talks about an indirect payment. These moneys are accounted for. The management committee which follows the spending of these funds is comprised of two people who are appointed by the Government of Nova Scotia. Is he suggesting that they in some way would be paying funds and not following whom they go to? Obviously, there were funds paid. They were, and will be, accounted for by representatives of the Government of Nova Scotia as well as representatives of the Government of Canada.
There was other money from the consortium which presumably went to Mr. Gillespie for his fees. This is not a matter of paying indirectly. The Hon. Member should not speak of honour when he is making such insinuations. In the same way, when he says that the Minister either lied or misled the House, I just finished indicating in my previous answer that, indeed, I misled the House and it was based on a letter from the Minister of Finance who was misled by his departmental officials.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is wrong.


John Carnell Crosbie: Pass the buck.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They are slow to catch on, but I repeat that I indicated in my first answer on this matter that the letter I would be tabling, the second letter from the Minister of Finance, would be accompanied by a letter from the Deputy Minister of Energy who had cleared the files once, gave a certain assurance and then, having looked at them again, under the undertaking given by the Deputy Prime Minister, found that he omitted to find some documents. They will all be tabled.


John Carnell Crosbie: Blame Cohen. What a rotten trick.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There was obviously a misleading of the House. That is why I have set the record straight. I do not
Oral Questions
think that it is an honourable thing for the Hon. Member to suggest that there was any lie.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ANNUAL REPORT-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, it is reprehensible for the Prime Minister to hang the officials out to dry on this.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: I want to put a question to the Minister responsible for the Cape Breton Development Corporation about the state of knowledge of another Minister of the Crown. In view of the fact that the 1980 annual report of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, which was transmitted to the then Minister, indicates that this project was taking place under the category "The Year in Review", will the Minister undertake to table all relevant documents in the House so we can find out at what point the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans became knowledgeable about this arrangement?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, one of the things that I think has not been said in this whole debate is that, if this project had been successful, it would have created between 1,500 and 2,000 jobs in the Cape Breton area for the supply of coal.


Some Hon. Members:: If, if!


Edward C. Lumley: That is one reason why the Cape Breton Development Corporation was so interested in seeing this process occur. But I will look into the Hon. Member's question.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It was successful for one person. That was Alastair Gillespie.


Madam Speaker:: Order. We simply must have order. The Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe will wait until he gets the floor in order to ask his questions. I now give him the floor.


REQUEST THAT DEVCO VOID AGREEMENT WITH ALASTAIR GILLESPIE
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, will the Minister undertake to table all relevant documents instead of withholding them from Parliament? Second, in view of the fact that there has been a very clear breach of the Prime Minister's guidelines, will the Minister now instruct Devco to void the agreement with Alastair Gillespie?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, again I want to reiterate that we on this side

February 23, 1983
Oral Questions
are very concerned about creating jobs in Cape Breton. If this project is successful there will be thousands of jobs created in this area. The Prime Minister has already indicated that documents will be tabled at three o'clock this afternoon.


APPLICATION OF MINISTERIAL CONDUCT GUIDELINES TO ALASTAIR GILLESPIE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to get to the bottom of what it is that the Prime Minister believes would constitute a breach of the guidelines. Does he believe that Alastair Gillespie fulfilled all of the terms of the guidelines and, in particular, does he believe that Mr. Gillespie paid particular heed to the guideline which states that former Ministers should not, within a period of two years of leaving office, lobby for or on behalf of any person or commercial corporation before any Department or agency for which they were responsible on an ongoing basis during the last two years of their participation in the Ministry?
Can the Prime Minister stand in his place and say that he does not believe that Alastair Gillespie lobbied or carried on conversations with or attempted to influence, on behalf of a person or commercial corporation, the Ministry that he had left?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member said "lobby or carry on conversations". I do not believe that they are identical. The record will show, and it has been recognized-


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes they are; look at the dictionary.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that Mr. Gillespie did apply for information to the Deputy Minister. He did it, I believe, in writing, and verbally. Therefore, there has been contact. True, that has been admitted in the House. However, as to whether or not that constituted lobbying, that has been dealt with by the Deputy Prime Minister in the House in the manner that I would have dealt with it. Mr. Gillespie obviously asserts that he did not lobby in the conventional sense of the term.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: It was unconventional, all right.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But more important is the fact that the then Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources testified that he did not feel lobbied. He received Mr. Gillespie as he received members of the public in many, many instances, and he provided them with information.
I guess we would have to reach an understanding of what lobbying is in order to know if there was a breach of the guidelines. I think one characteristic of lobbying is that it is constant and persistant.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Sometimes one call will do.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Exactly, Madam Speaker. Asking for information, in my view, does not constitute lobbying.


An Hon. Member:: You are rewriting your own guidelines.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the people of Canada will accept that as an answer, but I can certainly assure the Prime Minister that it does not meet with much favour here on this side of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I might suggest to the Prime Minister that one test of lobbying may well be whether or not the project being pursued was actually ever approved. In this case it is quite clear that Alastair Gillespie was able to convince the Ministry to proceed with approval for the project. If that is not lobbying, God knows what is.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Ian Deans: I would like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Given the fact that Alastair Gillespie did meet with and discuss the potential project with the Ministry with which he had previously been involved, obviously within the period restricted under the terms of the guidelines, and given the fact that it is now clear that the Minister of Finance was made knowledgeable of that fact prior to the expiry of two years from the time Alastair Gillespie left the Ministry, and given the fact that the-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Ian Deans: -the present Deputy Minister sat on a public platform and conceded that Mr. Gillespie was reaping the benefits of his own work in the Ministry, does he not feel that it might be appropriate to have this matter reviewed by a House of Commons committee in ail of its details-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: -including the day books of the Ministers involved?


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the question is whether the former Minister obeyed, or otherwise, the post-employment guidelines which were issued. I issued the post-employment guidelines precisely because it was known, it was probable, it was a fact of life, that people who left public office would go into the private sector, would be engaging in business of one kind or another and would probably come into contact with the Government. There was therefore no prohibition nor any attempt to indicate that people in public life would have to go out and become monks.


John Carnell Crosbie: No; they become fat cats.
February 23, 1983


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They were to be able to operate as free and private citizens. The intent of the guidelines was to ensure that they did not abuse public trust. That is the purpose of the guidelines. Whether or not this was a case of lobbying is, I think, a question of fact.


Walter David Baker: And worthy of some review.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The correspondence will be tabled and the Canadian public, not Hon. Members of the Opposition or Hon. Members on the Government benches, will judge whether asking for information, asking that a project be encouraged or pursued, constituted lobbying or not. If such was the case, I would want to tell the House-


Some Hon. Members:: Put the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, I am prepared to put the question, Madam Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Call an election.


John Carnell Crosbie: Let's have a prorogation now.


REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE EXAMINE DOCUMENTATION
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, given the amount of doubt that now exists, will the Prime Minister stand in his place and refer the matter to a committee of the House of Commons for a full inquiry and ask that all relevant material, including the day books of the Ministers involved, be made available for scrutiny?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I indicated that at 3 o'clock p.m. we would be tabling the documents. Hon. Members of the Opposition will have a chance to review them. The Hon. Member asked about a committee of the House of Commons. The House of Commons itself has been examining this question for a week. We also say that if Hon. Members of the Opposition want to take a day for it, why do they not use one of their days and have a vote on it? Then they would know.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[Translationj


FISHERIES
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Kirby Report on the Atlantic fishery states that the fish processing industry is in serious trouble, and that the fishing industry will recover only if everyone does his share. The Producteurs Independants du Quebec and the Quebec United Fishermen have submitted to the Minister a number of plans for the financial recovery and restructuring of the companies concerned and for setting up a marketing board. Could the
Oral Questions
Minister inform the House whether he has examined the plans submitted by the Quebec producers, whether he intends to make a decision in the near future, and whether he is planning to go to the Gaspe to meet fishermen and producers and discuss the contents of the Kirby Report?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to see that a Member representing fishermen on the Government side is asking questions about fisheries, because since our new policy was announced, involving a funding commitment of $200 million, not a single Opposition Member has shown any interest in the fisheries issue. I would like to thank the Hon. Member for showing his interest.
As far as the United Fishermen are concerned, a few days ago I met with their executive, and I told them that since a few months ago, the Federal Government had taken the first step by granting them $1.2 million, it seemed reasonable to expect the Government of Quebec to act on a commitment it had already made, namely, to contribute $800,000. However, I am always prepared to discuss the matter with them.
Yesterday, I had a meeting with the largest fishermen's association in the Gaspe, which advised me of their recommendations. I let them know that their recommendations would be passed on to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, and that I was, of course, quite willing to listen to any representations our fishermen might wish to make. Obviously, Opposition Members who have yet to ask any questions about this new policy are demonstrating their lack of interest in our Atlantic fishermen.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, who has today said that misconduct must be scandalous before it amounts to misconduct, and that lobbying must be persistent before it is lobbying. May I ask him this question? Has he determined what was in the mind of the Minister of Finance when he signed the original letter saying that the first he heard of this issue was in September, 1981? What I would like to know from the Prime Minister is this: just what did the Minister of Finance know about what was going on in his Department when he signed that letter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member will be able to find out. I will table the letter. As to what was in the Minister's mind, I do know

February 23, 1983
Oral Questions
that the Minister signed some 330 submissions to Treasury Board during the period that he was Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is conceivable that he would not remember every one of them.


John William Bosley: I take it the Prime Minister is saying that this matter is so inconsequential that, when he signed the letter to the Prime Minister, it was just one of his thousands of letters to sign.


STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF FINANCE IN NOVEMBER, 1980
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, will the Prime Minister undertake to investigate the following since he now says he believed that his Minister of Finance knew in January of 1981? Will he undertake to investigate why the Minister of Finance, the then Minister of Energy, said on November 25, 1980, to the Committee on Alternate Energy and Oil Substitution:
I would just like to stress that there are two of them-
Referring to projects on coal liquefaction.
-which involved Petro-Canada-
Will he check and determine for himself, as if Petro-Canada will tell him, that one of those was the project in Cape Breton and, therefore, the Minister of Finance knew even earlier than the letter he now says he knew?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member was presumably giving information that was given to him. I repeat, he does not know of every transaction in detail. He was asserting that the policy brought forward by the Government for petroleum substitution was being effective. He was giving as an example that even the Crown corporation, Petro-Canada, was involved in the application of that policy. That is something of which we are proud.


SPEECH BY MINISTER OF STATE (MINES) IN OCTOBER, 1980
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. The Minister may recall that she made another speech pertaining to this subject of Cape Breton coal liquefaction on October 14, 1980, some nine months earlier than the speech that has previously been referred to, as reported at pages 3662 and 3663 of Hansard. In this speech the Minister referred to projects pertaining to the manufacture of synthetic fuels from coal. She referred to co-operation between Energy, Mines and Resources, DREE, and the Cape Breton Development Corporation. She indicated that the process of coal liquefaction was questionable from an economic viability point of view and referred to pronouncements of her colleague, the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who had said the Government was prepared to assume a large proportion of the technical risk-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think it is very useful for the Hon. Member to read the entire speech. He may ask a question about the speech. It is close to the end of
Question Period and other Hon. Members want to get the floor.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, the content of this speech is important because it came two weeks before the first memorandum of agreement was signed with Gillespie and Associates. Will the Minister swear to this House that, on the day she made that speech, she knew nothing of Mr. Gillespie's overtures and proposals to the Government of Canada?


Judith A. Erola: Yes, Madam Speaker, and I would like to thank the Hon. Member for the case he has just made for coal liquefaction. I should like to tell him that the history in our Department is a very good one. It goes back to the year 1976. We have approximately 24 contracts here on coal liquefaction, including Algas Resources Ltd. of Calgary; British Columbia Research Council; Raylo Chemicals, Edmonton, Alberta; Kilborn Engineering Limited in Toronto; Sandwell-Beak in Toronto; Saskatchewan Oil and Gas; Westcoast Transmission. I dare say there is a Tory or two in the list.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUERY RESPECTING MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE OF PROPOSALS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, from the Minister's attempt to give a glib, initial answer, and then stonewall this House, it is quite evident that she knew more than she is saying. I ask once again did the Minister have knowledge of the proposals from Alastair Gillespie and Associates which were approved two weeks subsequent to the speech she made in this House on October 14, 1980?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, I answered that question. No, I did not know of Mr. Gillespie's association with the project.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER TAKE ACTION
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, today we had an interesting revelation in the tale of two letters.
I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. We now know that Alastair Gillespie lobbied the Department of Energy within the two-year period and we now know the Minister was aware of it. We now know that that contract was signed subsequently. Is the Prime Minister now intending to take some honourable course of action and discipline or dismiss that Minister for what appears, in the public eye and the eye of this House, as conduct unbefitting a Member of that Cabinet and the Government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, Hon. Members continue alleging unbecoming conduct. I continue referring to the guidelines, which are something of a guide to indicate what should and should not be considered becoming. I still have to hear from the Opposition
February 23, 1983

any indication, any proof, that there was undue access, that there was privileged treatment. That is surely the whole point.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER DISCIPLINE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, we have a litany before this House and this country, including Buchanan, Macdonald, Pitfield, and Gillespie. It goes on, and on, and on. 1 would appeal to the Prime Minister to stop this fiction, to give the people some sign that there is a shred of integrity left on that side of the House, and discipline or dismiss that Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member appeals to our integrity. I am quoting guidelines. I am quoting public knowledge of a beneficial transaction. I am quoting the policy of the Government of Canada. I am quoting the reality that former Ministers are not forbidden to deal with the Government, whether they be Tory Ministers-


Walter David Baker: Wow!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton shakes his head in despair. 1 can assure him that former Members of the Cabinet of which he was a member are in the process of getting information from the Government, indeed of their former Departments. This is well known, Madam Speaker.


Walter David Baker: Name them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They are not pariahs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. It is prompted by a concern arising out of the worst ice conditions off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador in the last two decades.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Yesterday a former marine co-ordinator with the Canadian Armed Forces Rescue Co-ordination Centre said:
-that rescue authorities do not have enough of the right equipment and some of that which is available is inadequate or improperly deployed.
He went on to say that oil rigs out there are accidents waiting to happen. What steps has the Minister taken in view of the fact that there are communities that are isolated, that there are people working on the offshore and that they lack
Business of the House
adequate search and rescue deployment and adequate equipment? Can the Minister give some assurance to me and the people I represent that they are going to receive some protection from these unusual ice conditions?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows very well that everything has been done in so far as search and rescue on the East Coast is concerned. The retired officer to which he referred only mentioned a few facts which are now completely out of date. I can assure the Hon. Member that we are doing everything we can. What is most important in search and rescue is to have the highest level of flexibility possible with all of our facilities and capabilities on the coast. I mentioned a few to the Hon. Member last week, knowing that there was a storm coming, but, thankfully, no incident occurred. Just the same, all of our activities were concentrated on the coast and flexibility was there just in case something happened that required our action. We do that every time it is required.


AVAILABILITY OF HELICOPTERS IN EASTERN NEWFOUNDLAND
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, will the Minister then explain to the House why there was not a rescue helicopter available yesterday in eastern Newfoundland when two men were lost on the ice? It was reported at 7.30 p.m. that there was no rescue helicopter available. In fact it was not until 1.15 a.m. that these two fishermen were rescued from the ice by a private helicopter. Can the Minister explain where the search and rescue helicopters were?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, we do not seem to have the same information because I was well aware of the incident yesterday and was told that our facilities were there in position, but because of the difficulty in getting to these two people on the ice pack, specifically, difficulties with the weather, we could not use the helicopters which were there in Gander, or our other facilities. However, as soon as we could, we used them. We responded as fast as we could, and it was done at the time which the Hon. Member mentioned.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like at this time to designate tomorrow, Thursday, as the fifth Opposition day of this current period of Supply.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, did I understand the Minister to say that tomorrow will be the Supply day?


Yvon Pinard: The Hon. Member is very quick indeed, Madam Speaker.

February 23, 1983
Business of the House


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, on that basis, it does not allow us sufficient time to develop and give notice for a vote-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if the scandal is so obvious-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has not finished speaking.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I would like to suggest to the House Leader, since we have not met this week, although last week we were under the impression we were going to meet today, and since there has been no indication prior to this moment that tomorrow was to be an Opposition day, that this move on the part of the Government is yet another attempt to cover up their sleazy actions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if the scandal is so obvious to the Members of the Opposition, and it has been more than a week since they started bringing up the issue in question period, I wonder why they are not prepared to provide supporting arguments for their accusations and to answer questions from the Government side, within the context of a structured debate. They would have the advantage of consulting documents that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other Ministers are about to table in the House, and in this way, we can have an intelligent debate on the issue, and the public will be truly in a position to judge and to see for itself how Opposition Members are abusing Parliament, while we should be considering economic issues and matters of far greater importance to Canadian society.
Madam Speaker, if one day's preparation is not enough for New Democratic Party Members, 1 am willing to designate two consecutive days as opposition days. If they agree, Thursday and Friday of this week will be opposition days, and they will have an additional day to debate the matter. For the time being, however, I am officially designating tomorrow as an Opposition day. However if 1 am asked to do so, I shall designate Friday as well, if that serves the purpose of the Opposition. What we really want on this side of the House, Madam Speaker, is to get at the truth and to have the Canadian people judge who is guilty here.


Madam Speaker:: Order. It is only conducive to order that a point of order be cleared up before I go on to another one.


Mr. Lewis:: I am rising on the same point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I know, but the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain stood up first to ask a question on Government
business. I cannot recognize an Hon. Member who is not rising from his seat. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain stood up first and I recognized him. We are on the same point of order. I believe it is conducive to good order that we clear up one point of order and then we can go on to another. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to the point of order. There is one House Leader for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in this House. He is here. I would like to say to the Government House Leader that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition welcomes Thursday as an Opposition day, and I can assure him that a vote will be put.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, you will remember that I went up to you before Question Period started and indicated I would be rising immediately the Question Period ended because we had had no idea from the Government what the business for tomorrow was to be. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I respectfully suggest that you were pre-warned when I rose that that was what I wanted to ask the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order. Yes, indeed, the Hon. Member for Simcoe North had pointed out to me that he would want to raise a point of order after Question Period. I was perfectly aware of that. I looked at him after Question Period but, unfortunately, there was a lapse of a few seconds, I suppose, in his timing, and I just have to recognize those who rise first in these circumstances. I was not demeaning the role of the Official Opposition. I can assure the Hon. Leader of the Opposition of that. It just happens that it is a rule and if Hon. Members want to be recognized, they must rise. Otherwise, I cannot recognize them.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I would just like to say that if there is a motion put on the floor of the House which deals with the matter of Alastair Gillespie and this Cabinet, we will be voting for the motion, if the motion quite clearly says that this Cabinet should be censured.
Let me just ask the House Leader for the Government, given that he knows full well that a parliamentary debate is not an adequate way to deal with an inquiry into the wrongdoing of this Government, will the House Leader stand in his place and order that the matter be referred to a committee in order that a proper inquiry can take place?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I believe my learned colleague spoke without thinking. I know he has a profound respect for Parliament, and I am sure that he will take advantage of tomorrow's debate to expound his views, to answer questions and to listen carefully to what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) will say in the House.
February 23, 1983

In the circumstances, I shall therefore refrain from criticizing my learned colleague. I forgive him. I know he spoke without thinking in the heat of the debate, and that tomorrow, our parliamentary institutions will give him an excellent opportunity to take part in the debate, to answer questions and to listen to everything Hon. Members will have to say on the matter. Once all aspects have been discussed there will be a vote, and then Canadian people will know, once and for all, what the situation is.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, with respect to the matter before the House, I wonder if the House Leader might reconsider the matter of the integrity of that organization. That will not be developed through an Opposition day tomorrow. That will only be resolved by an active-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. That is not a point of order.


Mr. Waddell:: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, are we to be assured by the Government House Leader that the present Minister of Finance will indeed take part and speak in that debate tomorrow?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I think I already answered that question after comments by the Hon. Member's colleague.


An Hon. Member:: They are getting nervous!


Yvon Pinard: The Minister of Finance has nothing to hide, there is no doubt about that. Furthermore, he will be quite happy to explain the situation and to show how the Members opposite have abused Parliament and indulged in innuendo, without any basis in fact, in an attempt to destroy people of consequence.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, the matter before us is not as the House Leader has outlined. It is a matter of integrity and that is a matter-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member will have all the time he wants to debate that in the House at the proper time.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, does this also mean that the Government will be tabling further documents with respect to this matter so that we can debate it fully?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I do not want to encroach any further on the time set aside for Private Members' Business, but I simply wish to repeat to the Hon. Member that in a few moments, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will be tabling documents.
Tabling of Documents


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, one of the things that concerns us on this whole strategy on the part of the Government for an Opposition day on this subject is that the Opposition has no opportunity to call for documents or witnesses.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Mark Willson Rose: There are no opportunities at all for the Opposition to cross-examine anyone. I wonder if the Minister has considered the possibility of providing a committee situation to enable the Opposition to cross-examine people such as Mr. Gillespie?


John Carnell Crosbie: And the Minister of Finance, and the Prime Minister, and Mickey Cohen, and the Minister of Mines.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, without wanting to repeat myself, if the offence is so obvious, as Opposition Members have been implying for more than a week, I wonder what the Hon. Member is complaining about.
If he really wants to have a trial, if he really wants to table supporting documents, and if he really wants to cross-examine witnesses, he should have the moral courage to go outside the House and press formal charges and bring a private suit before the courts and suffer the consequences.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 suppose what the House Leader of the Government is saying is that if we want to hear witnesses we should call them to the Bar of the House, perhaps.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I v ish to table copies of correspondence exchanged by the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and also of correspondence I received from the Minister of Finance.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) agreed to table documents related to the Scotia coal synfuels project. In accordance with the letter and the spirit of the Access to Information Act, I wish to table the

February 23, 1983
Tabling of Documents
following documents. These documents include, first, all correspondence between Mr. Gillespie and officials of the Government of Canada in the period up to the date of approval by the Governor in Council of the tripartite Agreement between Canada, Nova Scotia and the consortium; second, all internal memoranda relating to the project for this same time period.
The only relevant documents which I am not tabling are those which are in Cabinet confidence, in this case submissions to the Treasury Board.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I did not hear the Minister mention correspondence with the Board or any member thereof, or, indeed, the research branch of Devco and anyone in Government, or the correspondence which may have been exchanged between the Board or any member thereof of PetroCan and the Government of Canada. Will he undertake before tomorrow's debate to table correspondence between Mr. Gillespie and any member of the Board or any official of Devco, if any such correspondence exists; and any correspondence between any member of the Board of Devco or any official thereof and the Government or any Department thereof? Will he also apply that same request to PetroCan?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have tabled all the correspondence that is in my Department and in the Government's possession at this time. There is some correspondence that I have not tabled between the Government and some of these corporations. But with regard to all the documents that might have been exchanged between any partners of this consortium and these two Crown Corporations that the Hon. Member referred to, I am not in possession of them. They were not requested of me.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, the Minister has referred to correspondence within his Department, but what we are asking for is correspondence for those Crown agencies for which he is also responsible, namely PetroCan and Devco.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I shall repeat in French what I said in English, since the Hon. Member did not understand. I said that I tabled all the documents that were in the Government's possession, that some of those documents consisted of correspondence exchanged by Government officials and the Crown corporations concerned, but that I did not have in my possession correspondence exchanged by all parties to the consortium, including that of the Government of Nova Scotia, Crown corporations and private corporations. All the documents in my possession that I could physically table, have been tabled.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, what we are interested in, of course, is the correspondence between Mr. Gillespie and the Board of Directors or members thereof or officials of those Crown Corporations for which the Minister is responsible. I take it from his answer that he is saying that he has tabled any
such correspondence between those two Crown Corporations and Mr. Gillespie.
Will he also table, before tomorrow's debate, any correspondence between the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada relevant to this project, and any correspondence between the Government of Nova Scotia and Mr. Gillespie, if any exists?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member should look at what I have tabled. I have tabled everything 1 had in my possession. It is quite evident that his Fishing expedition is getting a bit ridiculous. We are hiding nothing: everything has been done above the table. I am tabling more documents than have ever been tabled before in this House of Commons. 1 do think the Hon. Member should look at them before making comments, and not keep on fishing as he has been doing from 1965 on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, with respect to the Minister's comment just now, I might say that we caught a few fish in 1965, and who knows what might happen tomorrow?


Madam Speaker:: Would the Members agree now that they have entered into debate? Exactly.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) can answer both the question of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) and my question at the same time when he rises. I wonder if the Minister of Energy would be prepared to table, in addition to the documents he has mentioned, the day book of the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) for the period from February, 1980 to December, 1982.


Walter David Baker: Not only the day book, but the night book.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, for the sake of completeness in the short time available, I wonder if the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley), who both made reference to the project and its viability in the House, would table any correspondence in their possession pertaining to this matter? 1 ask this for the sake of completeness of debate and in order to bring full light to bear on this particular matter.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker,
I rise on the same point of order. The Minister said he was tabling everything he had, all the documents he had, except Cabinet documents. I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether Cabinet documents would include any memorandum that Mr. Marshall (Mickey) Cohen may have made when he
February 23, 1983

met with Mr. Gillespie, and whether, in the interest of exposing the matter, he would table any memoranda that Mr. Cohen may have made with respect to that meeting.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said that I have tabled the documents that were in the possession of Mr. Cohen and others in relation to this matter, including some internal memos.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, earlier today the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) refused to agree to immediately table all the documents in possession of Devco in relation to this matter. Can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) assure us that before tomorrow's debate all documents in the possession of Devco that are relevant to this affair will be available to Members of Parliament?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I will give the same answer that I gave before. All the documents that are relevant or in my possession in this matter are on the table. Hon. Members opposite should look at them if they are serious about what they want to know. It is all there, all in written form. They should read them first instead of going around in a circle about whether I should table all the letters that have been written and all the articles that have been published on the subject. I think that is completely immaterial. They have the file as it was in my Department. I asked my officials to do a thorough review of all the files and they are all on the table. Never before was so much documentation tabled. I think all the facts are known and it will be known that there is no other interest than to try, perhaps, like in 1965, to "kill" people more than to get justice.


PETITIONS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to present a petition from constituents of Grey-Simcoe voicing their strong concern regarding the distressing situation in which the citizens of Nicaragua Find themselves.
It is my sincere hope and the hope of the petitioners that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) will take a closer look at the basic needs and human rights of these deprived and terror-stricken citizens and will support them in every possible way to ensure their needed protection. Immediate attention and strong support from our Canadian Government is a mandatory precedent, required to help resolve the outrageous atrocities which are being inflicted on the people of Nicaragua.
Petitions


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents in the riding of Athabasca. The purpose of the petition, signed by 84 residents of Calling Lake and the surrounding area, is to register their request that the federal Government investigate job-creation activities for the residents of this very depressed area.
The nature of this petition is to request that the Government immediately take action to create jobs for these people who are experiencing an unemployment rate greater than 75 per cent. This isolated native community is especially hard hit by the current recession and special measures must be taken to improve their desperate situation.
The petitioners hope that in your examination of this petition you will find the petition is in order, sense the urgency of their plea, and that you might use the discretionary powers vested in your office to allow discussion and referral of this petition to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by 652 concerned citizens of Vernon, British Columbia, who are asking that the search and rescue efforts to find Mr. Paul Sargeant and Mr. Jack Scott be extended and continued.
On February 8, 1983 Jack Scott and Paul Sargeant went down in their aircraft during a flight from Castlegar to Vernon, B.C. On February 19, 1983, the Air Force search and rescue team discontinued the search.
This petition shows the very real concern that has arisen in the community. Calls have also come into my office from Hamilton, Ontario where these men were both well known. On behalf of the petitioners, I ask for serious consideration of their request by the Government of Canada.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I want to avail myself of the opportunity and freedom to speak on behalf of my constituents by presenting a petition which is again on the subject of capital punishment. What makes this particular petition unique is not the subject matter, as all of us have represented our constituents that way, but this particular person is a new Canadian. She felt that she wanted to exercise her right as a Canadian citizen to work on behalf of the conviction that she holds very important to her and that she feels is important to the security of society.
Therefore, I take pleasure in exercising this right on behalf of this particular constituent who is a new Canadian.

February 23, 1983
Motions


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 63,1 move:
That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, tabled on Tuesday, February 22, 1983, be referred to the several Standing Committees as follows:
Madam Speaker, considering that the allocation of the Main Estimates to the various Committees is detailed and that the list is quite long, if the House agrees, I would ask that it be printed in Hansard as if it had been read, and I want to assure the House that it is the same list as the one I sent to the other House leaders during Oral Questions Period today.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, we have no objection to the practice but my copy says "pursuant to Standing Orders 62(14) and 63". I did not get that on the translation. If that is what the Government House Leader has, we are in agreement with that.


Yvon Pinard: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
Motion pursuant to Standing Orders 62(14) and 63. That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, tabled February 22, 1983, be referred to the several Standing Committees as follows:
To the Standing Committe on Agriculture.
Agriculture, Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture
Communications, Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70,75, 80,85, 90,95 and 100
Secretary of State, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 40 To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence External Affairs, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 25, 30, L35, 45 and 50 National Defence, Votes 1,5, 10 and 15 To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Economic Development, Vote 1 External Affairs, Votes 20 and 40 Finance, Votes 1,5, 10, LI5, 25 and 30
Industry, Trade and Commerce, Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, L35, L40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65 and 70
National Revenue, Votes 1, 5 and 10 Privy Council, Vote 20
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry Environment, Votes, 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 Fisheries and Oceans, Votes 1, 5 and 10 To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs
Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Votes 1,5, 10 and 15 National Health and Welfare, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 and 55
Social Development, Vote 1
To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, L50, L55 and L60
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Justice, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 Solicitor General, Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration Employment and Immigration, Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 Labour, Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15
To the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services Parliament, Vote 5
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates Finance, Vote 20 Governor General, Vote 1 Parliament, Votes 1 and 10 Privy Council, Votes 1,5, 15 and 25 Science and Technology, Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 Secretary of State, Vote 35 Supply and Services, Votes 1, 5 and 10 Treasury Board, Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works
Energy, Mines and Resources, Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, L60, L65 and 70
Public Works, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, L75, 80, 85, 90 and L95
To the Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines Economic Development, Vote 5 To the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections Privy Council, Vote 10
To the Standing Committee on Regional Development
Regional Economic Expansion, Votes 1, 5, 10, LI5, 20, 25 and 30 To the Standing Committee on Transport
Transport, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, L40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80,85, 90, L95, 100 and 105 To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs
Veterans Affairs, Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 4,416 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 4,416 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
February 23, 1983


Miss Carney: Since January 1, 1982, what projects or contracts were let through the registries of the Canadian International Development Agency, the Bureau of Management Consulting Services, and the Business Opportunities Sourcing System and which firms received the contracts?
Return tabled.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

Madam Speaker:: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Notices of Motions preceding No. 61 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Under Private Members' Notices of Motions I would ordinarily have looked to the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd), but I see he is not in the House at the moment.
Without seeking unanimous consent or attempting to set up a particularly detailed procedure, I would suggest to Hon. Members that they may be content if we were to proceed to Public Bills, second reading and reference to standing committee, a Bill standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).
The House itself may choose to decide or may want to call upon the Chair to decide whether in due course we revert to Private Members' Notices of Motions.
Public Service


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to have consultations with the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), and that is certainly agreeable to this side of the House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, am I given to understand that that motion will stand down and be No. 3 in today's order of proceedings? I think that would be in order.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, that is quite agreeable. If the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau arrives-I understand he is having trouble getting to Ottawa-hopefully it will be in time for the motion to be dealt with as the third item.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The understanding of the Chair is that we will now proceed to the consideration of the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), and that the issue respecting the Private Members' Notice of Motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd) would simply rest in abeyance for a while in order to determine whether or not he arrives, and that it might exchange places with this one.


David P. Smith: If the point my hon. friend is trying to make is that following the Hon. Member for Churchill the next item of business would be that standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), that is agreeable to us.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, that is fine with us. As a matter of fact, I have had an opportunity to discuss the first motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd), and we are prepared to let it go to committee right away.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case, I understand that the House is agreeable to moving to the matter of Public Bills, specifically second reading and reference of Bill C-346, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Churchill.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill) moved: that Bill C-346, an Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (political rights), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.

February 23, 1983
Public Service
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my Bill is to give political rights to Government workers. Under present legislation hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers are denied rights which other Canadians have. Basically those rights concern the right to participate and work in general elections at the provincial or federal level on their own time. There are also restrictions on whether or not they are able to run in general elections. We in the New Democratic Party believe that those restrictions speak against the fundamental rights of all Canadians.
Since I wrote this Bill and had it introduced in the House of Commons for first reading, we have passed the new Canadian Constitution. I would like to read the relevant sections of the Constitution dealing with fundamental freedoms:
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a)	freedom of conscience and religion;
(b)	freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of
the press and other media of communication;
(c)	freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d)	freedom of association.
Then I should like to refer to Section 32, entitled "Application of Charter", wherein it reads:
This Charter applies
(a) to the Parliament and the Government of Canada in respect of all matters
within the authority of Parliament-
I hope the Official Opposition and the Government do not talk this Bill out, and that indeed we will refer it to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates for discussion, for study and for presentation by interested groups, so that we can meet the obligations of the new Constitution of Canada. It is essential that we in the House support the Constitution we passed just over a year ago. It is essential that we recognize workers in the public sector should have the same rights as those in the private sector.
This is not a new concept; it is already accepted by the Province of Manitoba. It has been legal there, not only as a result of its introduction by the Schreyer administration, but it was not changed by the Conservative Government of Premier Lyon. It has been accepted and has worked for a number of years in one Province of this land. I urge Members on all sides of the House to give Government workers these democratic rights. Also I urge the Government not to be dragged into the courts, shouting and screaming against giving Government workers these rights.
We do not want a situation where again the Government is afraid to promote rights or to give leadership in granting rights, and is instead in the position of being forced into granting rights to its employees.
I should like to refer to some correspondence which I have in my possession. The first letter was directed to my Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), from the former Secretary of State, the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan), and was written on May 27, 1982. In part it reads:
It is not the Government's intention at the present time to amend the Public Service Employment Act in such a way that public servants would be allowed to engage in political activities.
The Government is saying that it will not grant these rights even after the passing of the new Canadian Constitution. Following that, on June 25, 1982 the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly), when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, spoke at a gathering of the National Union of Provincial Government Employees. I will not quote him directly but I will refer to some coverage of that particular meeting wherein it was reported:
Because there are so many public employees and the role of Government has become so pervasive in our society, Kelly suggested, there may be better arguments for maintaining restrictions than easing them.
That was very interesting, because three days later the Government introduced its budget which brought in the six and five legislation. That legislation affected hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers. It restricted their salaries and their pensions. Those workers who were denied their bargaining rights were also denied protection which was available to other workers in the land. Basically they are being told that they have no political right to work for another political Party. They are being told that they cannot write letters on behalf of political Parties which support their position and that they cannot canvass for political candidates who support their position. This present arrangement of the Government of Canada is a real infringement upon the freedom of expression and freedom of association of these employees.
Also I should like to refer to a number of letters on this particular issue which I have received over the years. I have taken the necessary liberty of removing the names and addresses of the people who wrote these letters because it could cost them their jobs. The first letter reads:
I would like to clarify and explain my own situation which should describe more fully my own special interest in this change.
I am currently president of a federal riding association and am also an employee of the federal Government falling under the rules of this ridiculous piece of legislation known as the Public Service Employment Act. I plan on offering as a candidate whenever Pierre chooses to call an election; however, it would be nice to be able to start assuming a public profile before this without fear of losing my job.
I am active in my union and in the party but have so far resisted the urge to publicly criticize the Government on anything other than Public Service issues.
That is one restriction. A government worker who wishes to seek election has to stay in the closet because of the legislation of this land.
I have another letter which commences:
I have worked for the NDP in every election since I joined the Party in 1975.


Mr. Cullen:: You just lost me.


An Hon. Member:: That is bad?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Rodney Edward Murphy: The heckling I am getting from my right is rather ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. Certainly in the City of Ottawa there are people who work for all three political parties. We have read in the Ottawa paper that if persons go to
February 23, 1983

any political office during an election, some people would have to be fired under the laws of this land. That means the heckling we are getting from the Conservative Party on this issue at this time is ridiculous.


Walter David Baker: From Conservative Members?


Rodney Edward Murphy: I am reading from a letter from a New Democrat. This is someone who admits to being a New Democrat and who wishes to speak out but is afraid to under the laws of this land. I would hope that the Conservative Members would show respect for the very difficult situation in which this person finds herself.


Walter David Baker: Conservative Members?


Rodney Edward Murphy: If I may continue, the letter goes on:
It also upsets me that in a country like Canada, the Government can limit the political activities of its citizens. I find it difficult to sing the national anthem "The true north strong and free ... ?" I have not felt very free lately. I feel that I have been made a second class citizen in the country of my birth.
I have a third letter which reads:
I am writing with regard to the recent Montreal convention of the NDP-Quebec where I was elected as one of the Vice Presidents on the Executive. Subsequent events have led me to believe that my election may be the cause of future concerns for you and the Party. These relate specifically to the interpretation of Sec. 32 1(a) of the Public Service Act.
I was informed by my superior of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada that as a federal employee I was in violation of the aforementioned Act and would now be subject to disciplinary action culminating in dismissal.
In a desperate effort to maintain my livelihood I have therefore with a great deal of chagrin submitted my resignation to the NDP-Quebec Executive.
There are people who have genuine political beliefs. I am sure that letters like these could be written to Conservative and Liberal Members of Parliament. These are people who have a genuine interest and like to work in the political process. They are people who have a genuine interest and would like to run as candidates and work during elections, but the present laws of this land prevent that. People deserve better. There are people who feel threatened under the existing legislation of this land.
Let me read from an article that appeared in the Ottawa Journal on Wednesday, February 6, 1980 during the last federal election. It was a charge made against the Public Service Commission. The article referred to Bill Doherty, Vice-President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and it reads:
The commission's threat, Doherty charged yesterday, is contained in its note that the lack of "firm precedents" as to what constitutes illegal political activity means "public servants are advised to exercise care so as not to engage in activities which might be construed as contravening the act."
If I were a Government worker and I received a letter similar to the one I have just quoted, I would be afraid to do anything in a federal election. That letter from the Chairman of the Public Service Alliance of Canada says the law is unclear, that you have to be careful and watch out because you do not know what will happen to you if you take part in a federal election.
Public Service
The Ottawa Citizen in an editorial entitled "Restore a basic right" on February 7, 1980 remarked on the issue. A paragraph from that editorial is quite informative. It reads:
The law is made all the more ridiculous by the patronage system. The Government asks its secretaries to be non-partisan but it appoints former Cabinet Ministers to head up Government agencies. Who is more sensitive to political pressure? Or, men who have served a political party for years are suddenly appointed to the bench and assumed to be independent and unbiased.
Again, we have an example where some people who have been political all their life are deemed to be unbiased. Yet some worker, it may be someone picking up garbage, it may be someone working in an airport or someone performing secretarial duties in one of the offices across this land, is denied political rights in this country. These are not just idle concerns. As we look through the history of this country, we see how this legislation has been enforced.
In 1978, a Mr. Garth Brewer of Woodstock, New Brunswick, received a letter from the Government of Canada. It read:
As you have already been informed, the Public Service Commissioners are unable to grant your request for leave of absence without pay under the terms of the Public Service Employment Act.
The Commission has carefully reviewed the responsibilities which devolve upon you as a Customs Inspector. For reasons listed in the attached record of your meeting with the Commissioners, on October 6, 1978, the Commission regretfully cannot conclude that your duties are such that your usefulness to the Public Service, were you to return to your position after engaging in political activities, would not be impaired.
The Public Service Commission of Canada said that a customs inspector may not run for election that the job is so politically sensitive that the worker may not engage in an election campaign as a candidate. Mr. Brewer did run. He was fired. Later on he was reinstated.
During the 1980 federal election Mr. Brewer wrote a letter to the Woodstock Bugle. One of the phrases in the letter reads:
Keep Petro-Canada, Sell Clark.


Walter David Baker: Sell who?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Sell Clark, just like the Tories have.
Mr. Brewer received another letter from the Government of the day. It reads:
It has come to Management's attention that you have engaged in certain activities which contravene Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act.
Accordingly, you are hereby advised that you are discharged from Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise effective March 13, 1980, by the Assistant Deputy Minister, Field Operations, under the authority of Section 106 of the Public Service Terms and Conditions of Employment Regulations.
Mr. Brewer could not run as a candidate. He did and he was fired. He wrote a letter which had nothing to do with his work as a customs inspector. He was fired again. He appealed and won but he lost three months' pay. The money was levied as a fine. This just points out the dangerous system we have in Canada.
We all know individuals who participate in elections. Some are being persecuted, some are being prosecuted, and some lose their employment. That is not just.

February 23, 1983
Public Service
One of my concerns about the present law is that it creates a hardship for people who wish to become candidates if nominations are called early. 1 can give an example of a person who faced this situation in Manitoba. I can mention her name now because she no longer works for the Government of Canada. She was a Government employee named Lee Monk who was forced to resign after she received an NDP nomination. This nomination was given about six months prior to the actual election being called and it was 17 months prior to an election having to take place. She lost her income for that period of time. If it was not for the fact that her husband was working she could not have sought election. Therefore, there is discrimination against those without independent income and those with lower income. That is one reason the law should be changed.
I believe the basic reason for changing the law, if we believe in a truly democratic society that all Canadians deserve the same rights and that our elections are an important part of the democratic process, is that we should ensure that this group- 500,000 Canadians-are not restricted and prevented from exercising those democratic rights. They should not have to live in fear of persecution and prosecution. I have cited one example of this. They should be able to depend on the Parliament of Canada to give them those rights that are outlined in our Charter. They should expect the Parliament of Canada not to slow down that process and to prevent those workers from taking part in federal or provincial elections.
This is a very important matter. I again urge the Opposition and the Government not to talk the Bill out but to act upon it and refer it to the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee so it can study it and listen to those who are concerned with this legislation.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), who I know is also interested in this Bill, for letting me speak first. 1 will not occupy too much time so that he and the House can have an opportunity to decide whether this Bill will go to committee.
The purpose of the Bill is set forth in the explanatory notes. It is to provide public servants with the right to engage in political activity and be candidates in federal, provincial and territorial elections. That is the simple statement of the Bill.
I would be inclined to support the Bill, with some reservations, because I think the time has come for some change. I have some questions that I would like to have dealt with in committee which, if answered, may have some bearing with respect to my view of the Bill. Nevertheless, I want to support the Bill so that it will go to committee.
For some time I have asked in the House of Commons that the President of the Treasury Board allow the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee of the House to look into the whole question of political activity by public servants. There are many theories-thousands perhaps-as to what rules should apply. Those theories go all the way from some Members who
believe there should be absolute prohibition of political activity by public servants. Very few Members hold that view. There are some Members who believe that there should be an untrammeled right to political activity. Members holding that view are also few and far between. The extremes of this issue are easy to deal with. It is the views in the middle of that spectrum that are difficult to deal with.
I think it is important that this question be dealt with. The Public Service Commission itself has indicated just what bad shape the law is in at this time.
I am holding a letter dated September 21, 1978, addressed to me from the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. I had written to him on August 25 of that year, asking what constitutes a prescribed political activity for public servants. This is what he said:
As you are aware, the Public Service Commission feels that Parliament should indeed clarify its wishes in this regard in order to enable effective administration of this important section of the Public Service Employment Act. You will recall that we devoted Chapter One of our 1977 Annual Report to a discussion of our concerns about this critical issue.
A part of the problem facing public servants confronted with the question of political activity results from the fact that the current legislative provisions stipulate a general principle (that no employee shall engage in work for, on behalf of or against a candidate for election ... or for, on behalf of or against a political party) and then state that this general principle is not contravened by the simple act of attending a political meeting or contributing money for the funds of a candidate or a political party.
The Chairman of the Public Service Commission goes on to say:
The situation is further complicated by the fact that the Commission has no power to take action in the absence of an allegation being made by a person 'who is or has been a candidate for election'.
He then says:
In the circumstances, it seems to me that Parliament must have intended that the provisions of section 32( 1) and (2) of the Act serve to guide-
We have heard about guidelines today.
-individual public servants in the decisions they have to make when confronted with a concrete situation and have therefore narrowly limited the powers of the Public Service Commission to intervene only in the matter of leave of absence and in those cases where an allegation is made by a person who is or has been a candidate. This would suggest that when a public servant is faced with the question as to whether the action he (she) is about to take or has been asked to take is consistent with section 32 of the Act, that public servant must first ask himself (herself) whether this action could be held to constitute work for, on behalf of or against a candidate for election or a political party and whether or not it falls within the ambit of section 32(2).
In other words, there is no concrete guide; the public servant must ask himself. All of us know that from time to time justice varies with the length of the Chancellor's foot. In other words, there is really no guide for the serving public servant who puts those questions to himself.
I asked the Chairman certain specific questions. The Chairman of the Commission said:
(a)	regarding lawn signs and bumper stickers, we have counselled public servants to adhere strictly to section 32(1) of the Act, pointing out that any action not specifically exempted in section 32(2) could be construed as in violation of the Act.
(b)	regarding the position of a spouse of a public servant, we have taken the stance that this is a matter for parliamentarians or the courts to solve;-
February 23, 1983

That is a question that does arise in a riding such as mine and others. He also said, with respect to holding membership cards in a political party, that:
-we have said that in our opinion contributing funds to a political party includes the right to hold membership in that party.
That was a letter from the Chairman of the Public Service Commission.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Is it dated?


Walter David Baker: It is dated September 21, 1978. The Act has not been changed since that time. The upshot of it is that the cases upon which there could be some question are not delineated at all by Statute. Some form of criteria should be established. The time has long passed since we should look at this.
I believe that the general principle which ought to govern is that we ought to be consistent with the maintenance of public order and permit political activity. 1 have often wondered why it might be seen to be improper to show one kind of political act, such as displaying a bumper sticker or a lawn sign, for example, but at the same time, in the quiet of one's room, one can write an application for a membership in a potilical party or write a cheque to a political party. I would have thought that in terms of the conflict which the Statute was meant to attack, however inadequately it does, it would have dealt with the state of mind of the public servant, and the state of mind would be the same whether the Act was public or private. I just raise that for consideration.
It is time that Parliament considered whether or not there is any difference among classes of public servants. We are, for instance, developing a management class within the Public Service of Canada which is outside the bargaining units in the Public Service. These public servants have perhaps somewhat particular duties. People who advise on policy have particular duties in terms of advising the Minister from time to time. A question must at least be raised as to the scope of political activity permitted those people.


Mr. Benjamin:: They'll police themselves.


Walter David Baker: We should consider the question. I draw no conclusions. It is worth while investigating. This Statute which has been brought forward by the Hon. Member ought to be studied by a committee of the House for that purpose.
I had the honour to be a member of the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee before the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) was rather unceremoniously removed from his post as Chairman. The Chairman of the Public Service Commission of Canada, in response to questions 1 asked during committee hearings, stated that the time was long overdue for an investigation of that matter. The following witness was the former President of the Treasury Board who is now the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston), a super Minister. He, too, said that the time had
Public Service
come and that he was not opposed. However, like so many things which must be considered, no one moved.
The Government has the right to make references. Perhaps the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee will understand the new mandate given to it by the new Standing Orders of our House and consider it worth while. If it does, then this kind of Bill, which has been put forward by the Hon. Member from his own vantage point, is the kind of Bill which could facilitate a review of that very important matter.
This matter has been continuing much longer than the Neil Fraser case, and I only refer to it in that manner because it is now before the Supreme Court of Canada. That case does raise some great problems and issues, no matter how the Supreme Court of Canada may decide, which could affect the place and position of many public servants beyond the person whose name is on that appeal. I hope the House will agree to send the Bill to committee, as it would be worth while to investigate this whole question.
I must tell the House that there is great interest across the country in this matter, both for and against political rights. It is time that the matter was aired because quite often problems with respect to public servants are neglected rather than reviewed by Parliament. If there is any proof of that, it is the fact that the Finkelman report was worked on by a joint committee, and the findings of that joint committee have gathered dust on the shelves. The only pieces of legislation we have had with respect to public servants have been to cut their wages and pensions. There is more to consideration of public service affairs than that.
I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Lang) is in the House today. It would be good if he were to rise in his place and move a motion, which I would be pleased to second, that at least the subject matter of this Bill go to the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee so that the questions could be resolved.
The Hon. Member who spoke before me inadvertently misled the House with respect to the position of the Ontario Public Service. It is not quite as tough as he said it was. Certainly, Ontario public servants cannot raise money, cannot go door to door and cannot write speeches. They can work in a candidate's office and can have lawn signs on their lawns. I am not arguing that their situation is utopian or perfect by any means, but the problem in the country is that political rights vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and at least in this jurisdiction we should review them to ensure that they are fair and allow people reasonably to exercise their rights as citizens of the country.
Therefore, I commend the Hon. Member for bringing forth the Bill and I hope its subject matter or the Bill itself can go to committee and we can deal with it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to commend the Hon. Member for introduc-

February 23, 1983
Public Service
ing this Bill this afternoon. Indeed, I believe this is the second time such a Bill has been before the House in this session. In April 1982, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) had introduced a Bill very similar to this one and, having read his remarks, I was impressed by the research which he had done and which may have helped us gain a better understanding of the principle of this piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, my position on this question is fairly well known. I have looked into a rather thick file on this issue which has been of some concern to me every since 1 was elected to the House ten years ago, and I am always amazed at the efficiency and rapidity with which our staff is able to find the documents we want. I should like to quote from an article published by the Ottawa Citizen on October 23, 1979: [English]
The article suggested that the Government amend legislation so federal public servants can work in defence of their country during the Quebec independence referendum next spring.

That was at the time of the Quebec referendum. I quote: [English]
It was suggested that three classes of public servants should be created, with the senior executives being denied all political action, the second group being allowed to campaign only with permission, and the third group having complete freedom.

Mr. Speaker, those comments of course were made following the report submitted by the Special Committee on Personnel Management and the Merit Principle, the so-called D'Avignon Committee, which considered the matter of political involvement where public servants are concerned. True enough, as the previous speaker has remarked, for at least the past four or five years the Government has been reluctant to refer the issue to a Committee. I do not think I am mistaken when I suggest that the Chairman of the Public Service Commission has often called upon Members of Parliament, whenever he appeared before the Committee, to clarify the scope of Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act. I do not think there is any need to repeat the point made by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), which in my view aptly reflects the remarks made by the Chairman of the Public Service Commission.
I would simply like to add that the unions, Mr. Speaker, also share an interest in that review, and that they would appreciate it if the scope of Section 32 were to be clarified. 1 would simply like to support the view of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton to the effect that the matter should be referred to a Committee for consideration, to put an end to the uncertainty that arises whenever an election is called.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I would be making any extraordinary statement if I were to support the comments voiced by the Hon. Member to the effect that here in Ottawa, during
election campaigns, public servants do get involved or would like to get involved in the electoral process, either by having a sign or a poster displayed in their lawn, by wearing a badge or contributing to election funds of any party, but there is that uncertainty concerning the role of public servants. Mr. Speaker, I submit that no Member of Parliament wants or would like to see the impartiality of the Public Service questioned during the electoral process. I do not think such is the issue at hand. However it must be recognized that there is a class of civil servants who do not advise the government on matters of policy. Therefore they should be allowed to take part in the election process. However, I would make an exception in the case of high ranking officials and administrators. As the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, I should like the committee to look into the matter of political activity by public servants. I for one feel that there should be absolute prohibition of any political activity, in their case for the sake of maintaining the integrity of Parliament, so that they may not be seen by the general public as being critical of a government they might have advised.
For this reason, therefore, it is clear to me that senior executives should not be allowed to take part in the election process. Which does not mean that our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms should not be challenged when civil servants or unions feel they are being deprived of their basic rights.
Since Parliament has adopted the Charter, it might be necessary to appeal Section 32 to the courts. I, for one, am not absolutely sure that the Charter of Rights does not apply fully and does not give civil servants complete freedom of speech and the right to get involved in politics. On the other hand, there are things to consider.
The present regime of political activities by public servants is subject to increasing criticism, mainly by Public Service unions and a number of Members of Parliament. I had occasion today to attend a social club in my riding. The speaker was the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. At that time I had no idea 1 would be speaking to this Bill this afternoon. During his remarks to the Richelieu Club of Ottawa, he spoke of political activities by public servants. I understand at this time he is addressing a group of public servants in Touraine on the question.
It is by pure accident that this happens. The main reason is that recently the former Leader of the Official Opposition mentioned that he would like to see some political input into the status of Deputy Ministers. The Ottawa Citizen of January 25, 1983 reported and I quote:
Clark would politicize senior public service posts.
Clark said in an interview he is considering making Ministers' offices more partisan in appointing political Deputy Ministers. Making sure the elected Government gets control of the appointed Government would be his third priority as Prime Minister, the Tory leader said.
February 23, 1983

Without going into the merits of that argument or the whole question, I hope it will come before the committee and we will be able to discuss it. There are dangerous connotations to the idea of the former Leader of the Opposition. It has prompted certain comments in the Public Service and the Chairman of the Commission felt he had to voice them. He did not say so in his speech, but I read between the lines. 1 would like to share some of the remarks he made today with regard to this question.

This is what Mr. Gallant said: "In my opinion, the role which our Public Service must play as one of the major institutions of our democratic government requires not only that it be impartial, but also that it be seen to be impartial. This is why, in my opinion, it is normal that, on becoming a public servant, we accept not only the advantages this represents, but also all the special responsibilities it entails, including the need to be impartial. While there are obvious differences in the requirement to remain objective in the case of an assistance deputy minister, a laboratory technician and a machine maintenance worker, for instance, it would be difficult and even risky for the Public Service to provide variations in the restrictions of political activity according to the job category and the occupational group."
I shall interrupt my quotation on this point to note that I disagree with the Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Gallant, in this regard. He does not want any variations or exceptions for the various job categories. I shall now continue to quote Mr. Gallant: "As for the suggestion that public employees might participate in partisan political activities on their own time, I believe that this could erode the concept of Public Service impartiality in the eyes of the public, and in this regard, appearances are just as important as the facts themselves."
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the Chairman of the Public Service Commission considered this issue important enough to speak about it twice today, on February 23, once before the Club Richelieu and again this afternoon in Touraine before a group taking part in an orientation program for EX-4's and EX-5's.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to use up all the time at our disposal because I would like this bill to be referred to a committee for study and examination. However, I must point out that this issue has been under consideration for several years. In 1976-1977, a special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate examined this issue and submitted a report to the House of Commons. Next Friday will mark the seventh anniversary of the tabling of this report in the House of Commons. I believe that the government should resume examination in the House of this very important question, namely section 32 of the PSEA (Public Service Employment Act) and the way it affects public servants, and that it should provide a clear explanation of this provision so that we may all know where public servants stand as far as their political
Public Service
activity is concerned I shall end with these words, Mr. Speaker, and sit down because I would like my colleagues to approve this motion as soon as possible.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in support of the comment made by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that if the Government is not prepared to accept the Bill, that it not now be read a second time but that the subject matter be referred to the appropriate standing committee of this House. I do so because I believe the fears of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton and the Hon. Member who just spoke are totally unfounded. Even in the case of senior executive advisers to Government, 99 per cent of the time they will not get involved with politics. If they did and if they could not agree with their Minister, they would invariably resign from their job or be fired. That has always been the case.
The experience of those having to apply for leave of absence, whether it be from a private corporation or Government, to run as a candidate or work in an election at all three levels, municipal, provincial and federal, over the last number of years has been generally good. It is improving. The main anachronisms and nineteenth century state of mind remain only in federal legislation and that of a few Provinces.
In my Province people have run in municipal, provincial and federal elections for all parties-I repeat, all political parties- even though they have been in the employ of the provincial Government, a branch, agency or Crown corporation. Following their leave of absence, they returned to their position. They did not allow their political beliefs to interfere with their duties when they were on duty. They carried on with their duties conscientiously.
That was my experience also, Mr. Speaker, when I was an employee of the Canadian Pacific Railway. When I was there from 8.30 to 5.30 I conducted the business of the Company according to the rules and the policies of the Company. When I was a candidate for public office and criticized the Company's policies after my hours of duty, and when I was on leave of absence without pay, at no time did the Company ever try to penalize me when I returned to work. When my leave of absence expired, I returned to my duties and carried them out conscientiously. My efforts to be elected to public office while I was an employee in no way either impinged upon the Company or harmed my usefulness to them in terms of what I knew about working for a railroad. I believe a lot of these fears are totally unfounded in actual experience and practice. There is little or nothing to fear from providing full political rights to public servants at all levels of Government.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield my place to the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party if he wants to speak, and I will follow up.


An Hon. Member:: No, I moved the Bill.
23152

February 23, 1983
Public Service


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Fine. Mr. Speaker, I believe in years to come, looking back, there are going to be a lot of people wondering why this legislation or something similar to it was not in fact passed. I believe they will look back and ask what all the concern was about, all this fear. We recognize now that some people who are public servants are participating in the political process in one way or another. Sometimes, as many of us politicians know, they make a significant contribution to a particular campaign. But we must always wonder if they are not really going counter to the conditions under which they were hired as public servants. I am quite sure that any public servant spoken to by Hon. Members of this House is quite content and satisfied that he or she can perform service as a professional in the Public Service in those circumstances, be it at the federal or the provincial level. These public servants do not feel inhibited in any way in carrying out their responsibilities in a particular Department.
The very careful presentation of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the considered opinions of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) are understandable because they have probably carried out more research in this particular field than many Hon. Members of Parliament, primarily, of course, because they have a large majority of public servants in their ridings. They are endeavouring to establish not only what would be fair for the Public Service, but also how the general public would perceive involvement of a public servant in a political campaign.
I believe the time is almost ideal to make the kind of changes which this Bill envisages, because in effect we are almost between elections. I believe immediately after an election, when you have won an election, you are really not particularly concerned that someone from the Public Service participated in the campaign, and participated against you. By the same token, if there is a very close race, someone who has lost an election may very well want to take revenge, if you will, or make a particular move which would discredit the public servant, and might, in the final analysis, result in discipline or, for that matter, that particular public servant might lose his or her job. For that reason, the Public Service Commission, I would suggest Hon. Members of this House, and the public at large are endeavouring to struggle with two rights.
What is in the public interest? We heard from the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier who quoted Mr. Gallant, President of the Public Service Commission. He wants to see impartiality throughout. I agree with the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier; 1 believe that is pushing it a little too far. I do not believe we need to be concerned about someone who is doing some filing, clerical work or typing manuscripts or reports, someone who is not, in effect, giving policy advice in a particular Department. I believe you can go a long way up the ladder before that kind of involvement or participation would be of any concern.
I share the hesitation of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, who accepts this Bill with certain reservations, and that is with respect to the management class, because here is an area where people in that particular category have to draft papers on behalf of a Minister or a Department on how to deal with a particular problem or a particular subject matter. These
individuals are clearly the jumping-off place, or the foundation, if you will, of maybe a particular piece of legislation, or maybe only a policy, but in either event they are in a position to have an influence. I believe the Department, the Minister involved, and certainly Parliament, would want to have the feeling that this individual was acting in a professional capacity, giving his or her best efforts to that particular project. But they might feel that the general public, knowing that the individual who prepared this document was in fact campaigning of behalf of an Opposition Member in the House of Commons or in the legislature, might wonder how objective that person could be. The individual might be a true professional, of which I feel there is an abundance in the federal Public Service. Certainly that has been my experience over the 15 years I have been here. The individual might be a wonderful professional public servant, but because of his or her participation in an election campaign, helping one of the Opposition Parties, would his or her particular representation or presentation not be suspect in that it might very well have been influenced by the Opposition Party in the House, or by the political philosophy of an Opposition Party? So without appropriate guidelines that public servant is in a very difficult spot.
There are guidelines at the present time, and I believe Section 32 has been quoted, but it does allow a lot of discretion to a public servant in that particular category. I heard a small interjections from across the way. They will have to be the authors of their own decision as to whether or not they are in violation of the guidelines. If we just had an out-and-out right, a civil liberty, if you will, a right of a public servant to participate in the political process, there would not be any difficulty and we might very well not need any legislation. But obviously, what we have here is a situation where you have two rights. There is the freedom of an individual to have a political opinion and to help a particular Party. But there is also the public interest, where the public must have the feeling and the assurance that this individual public servant is acting in a professional capacity and that the opinions expressed are professional opinions and not the opinions of a particular Party which he or she may have supported.
What I am emphasizing here, Mr. Speaker, is that we have the public interest versus a basis democratic right, and it is a legitimate debate. I am not certain that the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates is the appropriate forum. Everyone seems to want to deal with this. Even the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton quoted a letter, which is already five years old, where at that time the President of the Public Service Commission thought it was a good idea to deal with this. Then there was a quote from a former President of the Treasury Board to the effect that he thought it was a good idea that it be dealt with.
Mr. Speaker, it strikes me more and more like heaven. Everyone wants to go, but not necessarily right now. That
February 23, 1983

seems to be the way this particular policy is being handled, and I think that is to the detriment, frankly, of the Public Service. I do not think that the general public needs to feel fearful. 1 feel that managers and people at that particular level of the Civil Service should not be participating in the political process.
I wonder if we should not try out on an experimental basis the removal of many of these guidelines and say that people can run as candidates-if they run as candidates I think we would require them to get a leave of absence-but if they want to help a particular candidate, let that individual do so. I think that the practical experience that was referred to by the Member from Regina would probably come to the fore. We would find that a large number of them would not participate in any event, but it would allow the people who want to participate to do so. To what extent would they feel inhibited in doing their work? I think they would not feel that way at all, but it would indicate to the more wary public servants that they could participate in this. Otherwise, what we are going to have is that only those who are prepared to take a chance and to stick their necks out will participate and will run the risk of losing their jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that the time had moved on so quickly. I thought there was another Member rising to speak, but I understand my time is up. I think it is an interesting subject.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I might indicate to the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) that the time allotted to the discussion of the Bill put forward by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) has now expired. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 24(2) it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.
I wonder if I might indicate to the House that the next order of business would be a Bill put by the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), and I understand that he seeks the floor on a point of order to deal with that matter.
When the House has heard the Hon. Member, perhaps the Chair would recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) with respect to the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd).
As the House has heard, the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that that Member has been unavoidably detained.


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to discuss with my Party's House Leader, with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) and with the New Democratic Party the fact that perhaps this Bill should not be dealt with today and, with unanimous consent, could be put over until next Wednesday as some discussions within the Department of Finance might allow this Bill to have a longer
Public Service
life than most Private Members' Bills. I would be quite happy to have this happen, with unanimous consent.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, that request is agreeable to this side of the House.


Mr. Young:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that request is also agreeable to us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am not certain whether I should follow a particular form, and, accordingly, to make sure that the rights of the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) are ensured, I will first put the usual question and after that I will seek unanimous consent to the motion.
Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding Order No. 474 be allowed to stand, by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Does the House accept by unanimous consent the proposal put forward by the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton, and agreed to by other spokesmen, that the matter be withdrawn today and that it retain its place on the Order Paper for this day next week. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: With respect to the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Argen-teuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd), the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) will speak.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, regrettably the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau had trouble getting here today. He has phoned in to say that he had difficulties getting here. I would ask for the consent of the House that his Bill and its rank on the Order Paper be preserved as well, in a similar fashion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is proposed by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd) be withdrawn for the purposes of debate today but that it retain its rank on the Order Paper for one week today or thereafter as may be the case. Is that agreed by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I think under the circumstances we might have agreement that we now see the clock as reading six o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Considering that we do have some one and a half hours before the normal adjournment hour, I wonder whether, by unanimous consent, the House might agree to give further consideration-it seemed to have a great deal of support in terms of its substance-to Bill C-46 which stands in the name of my

February 23, 1983
Public Service
colleague, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). Could we seek unanimous consent?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) may be putting a motion under the terms of Standing Order 8(4)(a) which would rearrange the timing schedule of the House. If he were putting a motion under Standing Order 8(4)(a) then, as he is aware, it would require 25 Members standing in their place to deny that.
In the alternative, he may be seeking unanimous consent to extend the debate on the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Churchill. It is my impression that that cannot be done, given the fact that that hour has now expired. I think that a motion made after the time has expired would probably not be in order, but if the Hon. Member for Kootenay West wishes to persist, I will seek consultation as to whether or not that is possible.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you are referring to rule 8 paragraph 4, if I am not mistaken, and I have not heard the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) within the hour of that debate, the hour in which we debated the Bill, put the motion. I do not know how this ever got into our deliberations this afternoon, but to me this whole question is out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 think I could serve the House by indicating that I wanted go give the Hon. Member
for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) the opportunity to choose under which Standing Order he wanted to proceed. He has made it clear by signalling to the Chair that he wants to seek unanimous consent now to continue the debate on the Bill presented by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). There is no issue, therefore, of 25 Members standing in their place. There is only the issue of unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to the motion but by the Hon. Member for Kootenay West to continue the debate?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is no agreement.
I now have before the House the suggestion by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) that we now call it six o'clock. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 4.38 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 24, 1983