1985-04-26

Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, like other Hon. Members, in the past few weeks I have received over 150 letters protesting the heavy-handed actions by the Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare in seizing, without warning, a number of products from the shelves of health food stores.
Some years ago the Health and Welfare Ministry learned about the falsification of tests on a variety of toxic pesticides at the IDT laboratories in the United States. These products, approved for use in Canada before the truth was learned, were allowed to remain in use while new tests were conducted. As a result, some chemicals found their way into the Canadian ecosystem. At least any harm from the use of botanical products accrues solely to the individual choosing to use them.
My constituents protest the loss, not only of access to products they find effective, but also of their freedom of action. Many question whether the move was initiated by members of the medical and pharmaceutical professions who see the health food industry as cutting in on their profits. Surely all of us can agree that health food products must be adequately labelled showing recommended quantity and duration of use. Careful labelling is a better answer than removal of the product from the shelves.
[DOT] (M 15)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Minister of
Finance. It is reported that the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. James Baker, said that at the next economic summit to be held in Bonn from May 2 to May 4-in other words, very shortly-the U.S. Government will pressure Canada to reduce its annual trade surplus with the United States. How can the Minister reconcile these comments by his U.S. counterpart with the joint statement made by the United States and Canada at the Quebec summit a few weeks ago, according to which there would be a movement towards freer exchanges between both countries?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, if I could try to interpret the statement by the Secretary of the Treasury, I think he is saying that Canada has a very major trade surplus with the United States which he would like to see reduced, for obvious reasons. What I have pointed out to the Secretary is that we have a very heavy deficit on the service account, interest dividends, transportation and tourism, and that that almost offsets the other. He has said that he would like to see some change in that. We will be discussing that again in Bonn.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CONTINUE EDUCATION PROCESS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that of course does not jibe with the movement toward freer trade, if that is the position of this Government and the United States.
The Minister of Finance was apparently reported yesterday as saying that for the Bonn Summit, the Canadian Government is in complete harmony with the American position, yet the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury is looking toward a reduction in our surplus. He knows as well as I do that balancing the service and the trade account is a complicated matter, particularly if it is going to be controlled rather than by moving in a freer fashion. Any reduction in that trade surplus will hit automobiles, the forest sector, and our steel sector. When the Minister of Finance accompanies the Prime Minister to Bonn, will he continue the education process with his colleague, the Secretary of the Treasury, so that he understands the composition a little more clearly than he appears to at present?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that I do not see that there is a connection between what Mr. Baker said and the discussions that we had in Quebec City on the question of U.S.-Canada trade into the future. He is referring to a specific situation in 1984 and continuing into 1985. The other point that I would like to

April 26, 1985
Oral Questions
make is that there is no suggestion in what Mr. Baker said that he is looking for us to try to control in any hands-on way the trade flows between Canada and the United States.


John Napier Turner: I hope the Minister bears that in mind when he meets Mr. Baker in Bonn.


SPACE WEAPONRY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my third question to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is reported to have said that Canada will not be asking the United States for any further information at Bonn on the star wars research program. Would the Deputy Prime Minister consult with the Prime Minister to ask him why we would not use-I see I am not going to get an answer from the Deputy Prime Minister in any event. However, why would he not use this occasion to seek a clarification from the American Government on what participation it seeks from Canada in the $26-billion research program known as the Strategic Defence Initiative?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be the day for the Leader of the Oppositon to go fishing. The answer today, as it was yesterday, is that we see no reason at all to duplicate the work of a public servant. When we give someone a job to do, we let that person do it. When the information returns to Cabinet, Cabinet will make the policy decisions and communicate them to the House of Commons.
* *


IMPACT OF FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH UNITED STATES
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, Canada's Minister for International Trade and the Ontario Industry Minister both admitted that studies had yet to be made or completed with respect to the potential impact on Canadian industry of a free trade agreement with the United States. My question is as follows: Could the Minister of Finance explain to the House why the Minister for International Trade and the Government support the idea of signing a free trade agreement with the United States without first obtaining a study of the impact on industry and the jobs that might be affected, and also the impact on our exports,
such as pork, sugar and possibly lumber and public transit equipment? Why is this kind of agreement being suggested without a study being made?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer the question of the Hon. Member. He uses the term "free trade". I want to assure him that there has not been any suggestion of signing any agreement or working out an agreement for free trade such as he is suggesting. We have, of course, indicated that we would like to work toward securing and enhancing our trading relationship with the United States.


EUROPEAN STANCE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion read what the Minister of International Trade said yesterday in Toronto.
I would like to get back to the Minister of Finance on trade with the United States. One of the major causes of our trade surplus is, of course, the strong American dollar. Since the Minister is going to Bonn with the Prime Minister, could he inform the House whether the Canadian Government intends to support the European position that only a drop in interest rates in the United States will restore some measure of balance to the monetary situation and thus remove the pressure on trade surpluses as well as the pressure being brought to bear by a number of American industries to have their Government impose barriers that would restric international trade with the United States?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be favourable to the Canadian economy, and to all economies, if interest rates were to come down. One thing which has resulted in some distortions in trade flows as they affect Canada has been the strength of the U.S. dollar. We would welcome some decline in the level of the U.S. dollar, as the Secretary of the Treasury himself said yesterday. I do not see any inconsistencies in the positions taken by the European countries and the position taken by Canada.


ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Perhaps he could inform the House how it was possible for the Government to decide late last week that Dr. Ursula Franklin's appointment to the Atomic Energy Control Board should not
April 26, 1985

be proceeded with on the grounds that she was questioning the implications of the oath of secrecy, when the information with regard to her questions about the oath of secrecy was not available until Tuesday of this week?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, by the calendar, today is April 26. The letter which was received from Dr. Franklin is dated April 22 and was not received until April 24. That, coupled with the reservation which she raises herself in her letter, as explained by the Prime Minister yesterday, should sufficiently answer the Hon. Member's question.
[DOT] (M25)


TIMING OF DECISION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, it might sufficiently answer a question, but it has nothing to do with my question.
1 would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister again. It has been reported, both by PMO officials and by Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources officials, from the Ministers' offices, that the decision not to appoint Dr. Franklin was made late last week on the grounds that she had indicated that she wanted further clarification with regard to the implication of the oath of secrecy. However, she wrote to the Government on Monday of this week seeking the clarification. In her letter she wrote:
May I stress that I am not looking for private dispensation from the secrecy provisions but for a clarification of the relationship of the Board to the public.
How could the Cabinet make the decision last week, based on her questioning of the oath, when the Cabinet was not aware that she was questioning the oath until Tuesday of this
week?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. In the first place the Hon. Member's question infers that a decision has been made. It has not. Second, we are not going to be holding up an appointment because of the existence of the statutory requirement with respect to the oath of secrecy and the possible need for a review of that. But our original information came to the Government from someone who was personally known to Dr. Franklin, who expressed those reservations.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister is it normal practice that hearsay from other people would be taken as sufficient evidence not to make an appointment which already had been indicated was about to be made? Is it the position of the Government that it should have taken the word of someone who may have known Dr. Franklin, rather than asking Dr. Franklin herself?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Government operated on
Oral Questions
the basis of the best information which was available at the time. That best information indicated-which was subsequently borne out by Dr. Franklin's letter-that she had serious reservations with respect to taking the oath of secrecy. That was in the letter itself. Since that time there has been communication with Dr. Franklin with respect to the administrative problem in the appointment, and Dr. Franklin has accepted our apologies for any inconvenience which may have been caused by that.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the Deputy Prime Minister the opportunity to distinguish himself during this Question Period.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Ask the question.


Donald James Johnston: During this debate, his seat-mate, the Minister of Finance, has admitted that he allowed someone who was on the payroll of a Toronto advertising firm to work unsupervised in his office, that he did not sign a conflict of interest statement, and shortly after his departure, within days, an agency of the Department of Finance received an advertising contract worth $234,000. Would the Deputy Prime Minister agree that this is, at best, shabby administrative practice, and that the public expects and is entitled to higher standards from the Government?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, what I find shabby, on this side now, is hearing that kind of question from a member of the former Government whose ranks were riddled with conflict of interest throughout his term and well beyond that into the dim recesses of history. That is what I find shabby.
For the Hon. Member to suggest that the gentleman was working unsupervised is unworthy of him. Certainly he was under the very capable guidance of a Minister whose integrity, in the view of all of us, cannot be questioned.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DOUGLAS ROBSON-LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. I do not question the Minister's integrity-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: -that is not how we operate.

April 26, 1985
Oral Questions

The Minister himself has told the House, I think quite openly and candidly, that he was terribly busy, that he was in Washington and that he did not have time to set up his office, hence he appointed this individual who, presumably, was not supervised; otherwise the Minister would not have needed his help.
The Deputy Prime Minister remembers very well that we have had volunteers before in service. We had $1 a year men.


Charles Joseph Clark: Order.


Donald James Johnston: This Government is now introducing volunteers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With great respect, it is time for a question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Would you repeat the punch line? It wasn't funny.


Donald James Johnston: Yes, $244,000 a month men. I repeat the punch line for the benefit of the Government House Leader.
Could the Minister of Finance set the record straight by telling us exactly what these administrative functions were which were conducted by Mr. Robson? And what was the period of service? When did he actually begin and when did he leave the office of the Minister?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear that my chief of staff was supervising Mr. Robson throughout the whole period during which he was in my office. The two of them were working together to staff the office, to get the office set up in as quick a time as we possibly could, because I had the major responsibility of presenting an economic statement early in the month of November. Mr. Robson was in my office from, I believe, September 17 or September 18, shortly after the swearing in, and he continued roughly until the end of October.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister is aware that there is an impending work stoppage at Air Canada this Sunday morning, and that the basis of the dispute is Air Canada's insistence on increasing the percentage of part-time workers in its work force to 45 per cent of the total. That will have the effect of decreasing the number of full-time jobs, which are basically jobs for women. This is a matter of policy, and I wonder if the Government will direct Air Canada to stop its insistence on drastically increasing the number of part-time workers at the expense of full-time jobs?


Ms. Mitchell:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations between Air Canada and the unions are currently taking place right now. There was a new offer, I understand, put on the table by Air Canada last evening. The negotiations continued up until 12.30 a.m. this morning. They are back at the bargaining table again as of now. I think it would be inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, for me to comment further since it could very well be implied as interfering with the collective bargaining process.


EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN-POLICY INQUIRY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The fact is that the union has turned down the latest offer on the grounds that there is no real job security offered in Air Canada's position. Again I ask the Minister, as a matter of government policy and its control over Crown Corporations, is the Government going to allow Air Canada to destroy thousands of full-time jobs? Is it going to be government policy to allow that to happen to women workers?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What about employment equity?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, without agreeing with the preamble of the Hon. Member's question, I repeat, Air Canada, I think, has an excellent policy with regard to the employment of women. In fact there has been a substantial increase in the number of women at the management level. I disagree totally with the Hon. Member when he suggests that Air Canada is trying to hire part-time workers at the expense of full-time permanent workers. In fact, I think laid on the table is a very generous offer respecting job security. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question was to be directed to the Prime Minister but in his absence I will have the pleasure of directing it to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I hope for the best for an answer. Yesterday the Prime Minister informed this House for the first time that he asked for the resignation of the former Minister of National Defence. But on February 13 in this House, in response to a question put by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said: "Mr. Speaker, just so that the facts might be absolutely clear, the resignation of the former Minister of National Defence was offered by that Member of Parliament". Who is telling the truth, the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Prime Minister?


Charles Joseph Clark: Both.


An Hon. Member:: It's a slow day.
.

April 26, 1985


Erik Nielsen: It must be a slow day. I really cannot understand what the Hon. Member is trying to prove. I see no inconsistency with what has been said. I was a witness, and I think the Hon. Member was in the House at that time and he witnessed the resignation, sadly, of the former Minister of National Defence. It was announced in the House by the former Minister.


Mr. Nunziata:: Was he or wasn't he fired?


Erik Nielsen: As far as I am concerned, surely all Hon. Members in the House can take that as compelling evidence of the origination of the resignation by the Minister himself, as sad an occasion as that was.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: So much for clarity.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: So much for clarity. The Deputy Prime Minister knows very well that is normal procedure. It's behind the scenes that we want to know what went on.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Forrestall:: Come on over, Len.


REASON FOR RESIGNATION
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Many Canadians are still asking why the former Minister resigned. The Prime Minister said he did nothing wrong. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said he was not asked for his resignation. The Prime Minister said he was asked for his resignation. The Prime Minister said there was no breach of security, that he is an honourable man-and I agree-and that he did not breach any conflict of interest, and on and on it goes.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Why then did he resign? I ask again who is telling the truth, the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Prime Minister? Stop stonewalling.


Charles Joseph Clark: What nonsense.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I always make the utmost endeavour to answer all questions with that degree of clarity-


John V. Nunziata: You had better go to confession tomorrow, Erik.


Erik Nielsen: -which the clarity of the question itself requires. As far as the reason for the resignation is concerned, Hon. Members of this House have that reason from the lips of the former Minister himself. Surely the Hon. Member could adopt the longstanding tradition of this House and accept the word of the Minister who resigned on that very regrettable occasion.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


UNITED STATES-PRESIDENT'S VISIT TO GERMANY
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the Prime Minister's close ties with President Ronald Reagan, will the Government urge the President to cancel his proposed visit to the cemetery for the SS troops?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Government's regard for the sovereignty and sovereign decisions of other countries, we will leave decisions about United States policy to be taken by the administration of the United States.


REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, considering Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's recent statement of disagreement with the President's decision, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggest to the Prime Minister that it would be an act of friendship if the Prime Minister would telephone President Reagan and urge him to reconsider?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if the suggestion comes from the Hon. Member to the Government of the United States, I doubt that it could be interpreted as an act of friendship.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Solicitor General. The police chief of Metropolitan Toronto, Jack Marks, has recently indicated his great concern about the Young Offenders Act. Among other concerns, he stated that his force's hands are tied in dealing with some 300 cases involving arson, theft, assault, and sexual assault, because the suspects are under 12 years of age. He has asked for a review of the Young Offenders Act. Would the Acting Solicitor General indicate to the House whether he would be prepared to have a review such as is called for by the chief?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I am informed by officials of the Department of the Solicitor General that they are in fact very closely monitoring the operation of the new law. I might point out that the police may deal with the age group referred to by the chief under the provisions of the provincial child welfare legislation and other relevant provincial laws. There are vehicles and devices available to the law enforcement agencies.
4144

April 26, 1985
Oral Questions
I want to reassure the Hon. Member that this is clearly a new departure that has been taken. The Solicitor General and his departmental officials are paying very close attention to the operation of the law.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am all tied up here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: We've known that for years.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Wave the hounds down, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In addressing the question I am reminded of the old mother saying: "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!"
We just saw the Secretary of State for External Affairs shaking his head, "no", when he heard himself being quoted by my colleague with respect to his comments as to the initiation of the resignation of the Minister of National Defence. We just heard the Deputy Prime Minister contradict the statement the Prime Minister made yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am coming to the question, gentlemen. I advise the Secretary of State for External Affairs to check Hansard of the days he was questioned, February 14 and 15. Was the Minister indicating to the House that the Minister of National Defence had submitted his own resignation, or is he telling us now that he agrees with what the Prime Minister said yesterday, that in fact the resignation was solicited?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I was intending to say to the House on those dates what I said to the House on those dates. That is entirely consistent with what the Prime Minister of Canada has said.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, you would need a road-map to follow the logic that is being expressed opposite. You would have to do mental gymnastics to try to stay in touch with the convoluted answers we are getting. We are not sure what the Minister intended to say. I do not think he is sure any more.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order. Wednesday becomes Friday this week. A supplementary question, please.


MINISTER S REPLIES
Brian Vincent Tobin: My
question to the Minister of External Affairs could not be any clearer. Two days following the resignation of the Minister of National Defence, on February 14 and 15, in response to specific questions by the Member for Hamilton Mountain, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the Minister had resigned of his own volition, that he jumped rather than being pushed. I am now asking whether the Secretary of State agrees with the Prime Minister that he was pushed. More importantly, as The Globe and Mail says-


An Hon. Member:: Tear it up.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order. 1 think we have had the question put.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it is my regretful conclusion that the Hon. Member is beyond help.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Earlier this year the Cabinet approved the takeover of Worthington Canada in Brantford by the huge U.S. multinational, Dresser Industries of Dallas, Texas. Would the Minister tell the House what undertakings were received from Dresser Industries to expand jobs in Brantford as a result of this takeover?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is well aware, it is not customary to reflect on, or certainly to reveal, what undertakings may have been given at the time of a clearance or other approval such as he has referred to.


DRESSER INDUSTRIES' LAY-OFF POLICY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware of the corporate policy of Dresser as expressed by its chairman, John James, in 1982, at which time he said:
Since I came here as chairman we've made an effort to keep our U.S. plants fully loaded, while keeping any necessary lay-offs primarily in foreign plants.
Did the Minister receive undertakings from Dresser that it would not apply this philosophy to the Worthington plant in Brantford? Did he get assurances that the jobs in the plant in Brantford would be protected?
April 26, 1985


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as you will well understand, the answer to the second question is the same as the first.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Solicitor General. It is with regard to the young offenders legislation. There is considerable public concern that, while the Act devolves total responsibility on the young people, because they are young, particularly in cases of vandalism, they cannot be held accountable. They have no way of making restitution. Would the department consider re-opening an examination of the Bill to allow for joint responsibility between the young people and parents, as opposed to vicarious responsibility? In that way those who suffer damages as a result of vandalism could get restitution.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr,
Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta has long had an interest in this very important matter. He put forward some amendments in committee with respect to vicarious responsibility by parents.
As the Hon. Member will know, because of the criminal context, the issue of co-responsibility and vicarious responsibility is a complicated subject. I can assure the Hon. Member, by virtue of the fact that he has an interest in this and is making a representation, that the Solicitor General and his officials will give serious consideration to that particular initiative. I appreciate very much the constructive suggestions coming forward from that Member.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Government House Leader. The Prime Minister and his Government had promised to set up a parliamentary committee that would be responsible for reviewing major appointments made by the Government. As so many promises, this one has not been kept, so far. Many Canadians have objected to the appointment of Mr. Bud Sherman, a former Conservative candidate who was defeated in the last election. Mr. Sherman was appointed, as the House is aware, to the CRTC. It is also common knowledge that Mr. Sherman is well known for his comments on federal bilingualism-
Oral Questions

On January 23, 1983, Mr. Sherman spoke in the Manitoba Legislature about "federal style bilingualism". At that time he said that "it has damaged the economy, has damaged the nation's social harmony, has damaged the Armed Forces, has damaged their jobs and their career advancement opportunities, very, very severely in many instances, to ensure the re-election of the Party at hand".
Will the Minister keep his word and his Government's commitment, and ask that Mr. Sherman appear before the Committee on Official Languages to justify his position and to make all Canadians aware of his stand so that we know what kind of people are being appointed?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister has addressed the matter with respect to Mr. Sherman. He has indicated that it is that kind of question which caused the representation of the Liberal Party in Quebec to drop like a stone in the last election, that kind of divisive approach to this whole important issue.
Mr. Sherman was not talking about the issue of bilingualism as a principle but the way in which the Liberal Government introduced it and attempted to implement it in the country. That was a disgrace.
As far as confirmation and other hearings are concerned, as the Hon. Member well knows, this matter is under consideration by the parliamentary task force on reform. We are waiting with great interest for the recommendations of that particular task force to come forward, to provide the guidelines and the method by which important appointments may in fact be made. The Hon. Member will know that this Government will act on those recommendations.


ESTABLISHMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should ask the opinion of his colleagues from Quebec. It might be quite an education for him.

Will the Minister confirm that indeed his Government has not named the committee to review and assess the nominations of people to important positions basically because up to now the Government has named over 1,200 people and it wants to cater to all the Tory hacks in the country before giving Parliament the responsibility of evaluating nominations?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I must take the premise of the question seriously because it comes from a representative of a Party that is well briefed in terms of hacks and patronage over the course of the last years. All I can say is that the premise is wrong.
The fact of the matter is that the distinguished Member for St. John's East and his committee, consisting of Members

April 26, 1985
Oral Questions
from the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, are in fact taking these matters under serious consideration.
We want to make sure that there is a proper role for parliamentarians in the examination of important-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Do it now.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We will be awaiting the recommendations of this committee. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member will be pleased with the results of that particular recommendation.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is the Government or his Department reviewing the freight rate subsidies on grain and flour to Atlantic ports, namely, the At and East rates, with a view to reducing or removing the subsidies?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the issue to which the Hon. Member refers of course would require a legislative change. A number of suggestions have been made that the At and East rate proposal should be reviewed for the most advantageous cost benefit analysis. Of course that is being done, but at the present time there are no contemplated legislative changes that are currently being considered or drafted.


REQUEST THAT SUBSIDIES BE RETAINED
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: 1 do not particularly like people who say "I told you so", but when we were discussing the Crown rate Bill and I had access to a Cabinet document, and the intention of the Government for the long term was to remove the Government from under any and all transportation subsidies.
In view of the fact that the At and East rates keep ports like Halifax and St. John competitive on the export market, provide millions of dollars of revenue for those ports and hundreds of jobs, and help western grain producers' export sales, will the Minister assure the House that the At and East rates on grain and flour through the Atlantic ports will in fact be retained?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first the Hon. Member refers to Cabinet documents. He is accustomed to having Cabinet documents that are usually two years old, so 1 really would not comment further on that.
With regard to the importance of the At and East rates, 1 recognize, as I am sure do all other Hon. Members, the importance of the At and East rates and certainly that will be taken into consideration.
1 believe that history will show that this Member and this Party took a very strong stand in support of the retention of the At and East rates, and he should not forget that. He is not the great Samaritan on that particular issue.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour as Acting Minister of Employment and Immigration. In spite of the fact that NDP and Liberal Members predicted the failure of the Challenge '85 Program, 1 am swamped with applications in Bow River. Is this same strong endorsement of Challenge '85 apparent in other constituencies?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer my hon. friend's question, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Mr. Nystrom:: It is a hard one.


Andrée  Champagne: Not at all, and I shall be delighted to answer it, Mr. Speaker, if 1 may.
If we consider the SEED program which aims to develop experience on the job, we expected to create 73,000 jobs but have now received requests for 173,000.


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you. Order. I think that is enough of an announcement at this time.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to-


An Hon. Member:: Squeak it out.


John V. Nunziata: As a Member of Parliament I have a right to ask questions in the House, and I would appreciate it if Hon. Members would stop insulting me while I am asking my questions.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Tough.


An Hon. Member:: Go get a rattle.


John V. Nunziata: April 26, 1985

My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the MacKay-Hatfield affair.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Sleaze and Slime.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are patiently waiting for answers concerning the Solicitor General's inexcusable behaviour in this matter, and the very serious allegations by Premier Hatfield concerning a so-called RCMP conspiracy to overthrow his Government. Why did the RCMP want to investigate my involvement in the MacKay-Hatfield matter when they did not investigate the Solicitor General's involvement, and did not investigate or interview Premier Hatfield? I would like to know whether the Government instructed the RCMP to investigate my involvement?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of any investigation or investigations that the RCMP might be conducting into any particular circumstance or circumstances affecting the Hon. Member.


REQUEST THAT REPORT BE TABLED
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, we are advised that the internal RCMP report is now in the hands of the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General has steadfastly refused to give us his undertaking to make that report public.
In view of the fact that the Solicitor General's ability to decide objectively whether or not to release the report is impaired by his own implication in the matter, will the Deputy Prime Minister order the Solicitor General to table the report in the House of Commons so that Canadians can have answers to the questions, or is it the intention of the Government to hide the report and keep it secret because it is a source of embarrassment to the Government?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member, and all Members of the House, that we will not be pursuing the kind of practices that were pursued by the previous administration with respect to openness and providing full information to the House of Commons.
With respect to this particular report, I can only repeat the answers I have given in the past in response to that same question which has been repeatedly put to myself, the Solicitor General, and other members of the Government. When the report has been reviewed by the Solicitor General he will bring an objective value judgment to bear on the report.


John Napier Turner: Unedited?


Erik Nielsen: The Leader of the Opposition is heckling across the aisle "unedited". Surely he would agree that one of the first responsibilities of the Minister is precisely as 1
Petitions
described it, and then to inform the House what the decision is.


MARINE SAFETY
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday afternoon, the Pacific halibut fleet was caught by a sudden storm in Hecate Strait. Winds that had been forecast for 30 miles an hour blew up to 70. Eight boats sent out distress calls. I understand two boats are known to have sunk. Their crews were rescued. Two other boats, 1 understand, are still missing, along with their crews.
Has the Government increased personnel and weather reporting stations in accordance with a report submitted by her Ministry last fall after five fishermen lost their lives off northern Vancouver Island in a similar storm?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, we are most certainly concerned about the accident reported on the West Coast, but I have yet to receive all the details.
To answer the Hon. Member's question, we have improved our services, as I said we would, in accordance with the recommendations of the LeBlond Report.


Mr. Speaker:: A very short supplementary for the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INVESTIGATION
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. Considering the tragic loss of life in this and other situations, will the Minister order a complete, full, and public investigation of all aspects of marine safety on the Pacific Coast, including weather reporting, and the availability and co-ordination of search and rescue facilities?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as a representation.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, April 25, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

April 26, 1985
Privilege-Mr. Gauthier PRIVILEGE


ALLEGED INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVILEGES OF MEMBER
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. During the Question Period the privileges of the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) were, in my opinion, interfered with.


An Hon. Member:: Can't he speak for himself?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: During the time that he was recognized and was asking questions the Hon, Member was interfered with by the Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard), who came behind him and dropped a sheaf of paper over the notes of the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe, thereby interfering directly with the train of thought of the Member, directly interfering with his access to his desk which is his seat, his place, and thereby interfering, in my view, with his privilege to put a question to the Government in a way he feels appropriate. I would like to have the Hon. Member apologize at this time or we will have an issue of some consequence regarding his privileges.


Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. I would be happy to apologize to the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). 1 thought I was helping because I thought he was working up to another instance of throwing paper-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a group of residents from the Miramichi region which deals with the expropriation of private property at the Nordin rifle range. In the petition they express concern about the Department of National Defence's intention to expand the rifle range. They have asked me to convey to the House, with this petition, their objections to the planned expansion and expropriation of land. I do so and submit this petition on their behalf.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition on behalf of Prince Edward Island farmers who wish to voice their concern over this Government's decision to abolish Canagrex. They ask that Canagrex be reinstated so that it may get on with the job that it was proving it was capable of and designed to do.



WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
*
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Apologize.


John V. Nunziata: Damn well apologize.


William C. Winegard: -in what I call the usual "funny farm hour". If I interfered with him in any way, I am, of course, pleased to apologize.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: Never try that again.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I have just been threatened by a member of the rat pack-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: The chief rat.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to observe my obligations to all of my duties. Perhaps I should ask that we leave this whole matter right here.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: for leave to introduce Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Western Grain Transportation Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 297.
'i/
April 26, 1985

Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
PULLORUM/TYPHOID ERADICATION PROGRAM
["I declare the motion lost.\nIt being after five o'clock p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 5.12 p.m. the House adjourned.", 'Monday, April 29, 1985']
Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The cost for the Pullorum/Typhoid Eradication Program conducted through Agriculture Canada was $81,259. Compensation paid under the program was $3,457.
2.	For 1985-86, the cost is expected to be $41,847 and $2,500 for compensation.
3.	During 1984, 62,146 game and exhibition birds were tested, 297 reacted serologically, two of which were culture positive.
4.	No charge was made for testing in 1984. No charge is being considered in the future since testing of exhibition birds will be phased out.
5.	Certain parts of the program will continue indefinitely to meet import certification demands of countries.
[ Translation]


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary when we might expect a reply to Question No. 86 which was asked on November 15, 1984, dealing with the removal of PCBs from old DEW line sites in the Northwest Territory?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the Hon. Member that so far we have answered 65.7 per cent of all questions put and we will be answering that one soon.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining question stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Ian Deans: That, in the opinion of this House, the granting of an untcndcrcd contract to the brother-in-law of the present Minister of Finance by the Government of Canada is an unacceptable action.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this motion mainly because it was impossible for us during the course of a number of Question Periods and the questioning that went on therein to elicit from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) an indication as to whether he believed the action taken by the now Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre) with regard to the granting of a contract to the brother-in-law of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is an action that is acceptable in the eyes of the Prime Minister and, therefore, acceptable in the mind of the Government.
We tried on numerous occasions to have the Prime Minister answer a relatively simple question. The question was this, and I want to put it on the record so that anyone watching, listening, or perhaps at some future date reading the events of the last week will be able to understand what is in fact the question to which we have been trying to get an answer.
On April 24 I rose in my place during the Question Period and said the following; as reported at page 4057 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister believe that it is appropriate for the relative of a Cabinet Minister to receive benefits from an untendered contract?
On that day the Prime Minister refused even to get to his feet to respond to the question. In fact, the question was answered by the Minister of Supply and Services. Let me put on the record now what his answer was:
Mr. Speaker, I have tried to explain to members of the New Democratic Party on at least five or six occasions the nature of the advertising agency business in this country. I repeat that we selected Lawson Murray because it is known to us. It has our trust because it is an expert in this field. The firm demonstrated the wisdom of our decision by coming up with savings of at least a half million dollars a year, and I repeat, I will always sign those kinds of contracts.
I put that on the record because 1 think any clear thinking individual would appreciate that that answer, interesting though it is, was not an answer to the question I asked. It bore no relationship to the question I asked. It did not address the question of the appropriateness of the granting of an untendered-and I emphasize and underline untendered-contract to a relative of a Minister of the Crown.
That question is fundamental to the system in which we operate. I therefore rose again and said on that same day, as reported at page 4057 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it the opinion of the Prime Minister that it is appropriate for the relative of a Cabinet Minister to receive benefit from an untendered contract with the Government?

April 26, 1985
Supply
I sat down and I waited. The Prime Minister twitched but did not quite make it to his feet. The Minister of Supply and Services rose, and between some interjections said: "The guidelines indicate .."Because . .and:
Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Supply and Services I am responsible for contracting for some $7 billion worth of goods and services each year-
As the Minister responsible, it is up to me to ensure that all guidelines respecting conflict of interest are satisfied. I assured myself that all guidelines were satisfied. I repeat, I think it was a great contract. I would do it again tomorrow if the opportunity came up.
Again I point out that no one was asking whether the firm in question was competent, capable or able to undertake good and valuable work on behalf of the people of Canada. Therefore, the answer given again by the Minister of Supply and Services, since the Prime Minister refused to answer, was not the answer to the question to which we were attempting to get an answer.
I went away and I thought: How can I ask this question so that the Prime Minister will understand it? Maybe there is a barrier between his seat and mine which makes it difficult for him to comprehend fully the nature of the English language that 1 use. I went back, I sat down and 1 thought: How will 1 ask the question? I came to the conclusion from a number of discussions that I held that the way to ask the question was in fact the way 1 had asked the question, that there could be no simpler way. I had not used very large words. 1 had tried to get them into some sort of grammatical acceptability. Then I rose on the following day, on April 25, and as reported at page 4108 of Hansard I said to the Prime Minister:
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is the question I asked yesterday to which I did not receive a reply. Does the Prime Minister believe that it is appropriate for a relative of a Cabinet Minister to receive benefit from an untendered contract with the Government?
This time the Prime Minister heard me. 1 could tell because his eyes lit up, and he rose ever so slowly to his feet. He looked across the floor with a small smile at the corner of his lip and he said:
Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the Member yesterday-
Well, that was the first mistake, because the truth of it is that he did not indicate anything to me "yesterday". He had refused to answer the day before. I quietly, as is always my practice, leaned forward in my seat and I said:
You didn't answer me yesterday.
He looked across, lowered his glasses somewhat in the fashion I am doing now, and he said:
If not to the Hon. Member, then to one of his colleagues, surely. I indicated that at the earliest possible moment-and they are in the process of being completed now-in both instances, with regard to the conduct of Cabinet Ministers as Ministers of the Crown, and with regard to tendering procedures and granting of contracts, we would bring in new guidelines with new degrees of severity. I think those guidelines will be of service to the House and will be very, very frugal in regard to taxpayers' dollars.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that was a nice answer and no doubt would have been very suitable had there been a question addressed with regard to that particular problem. But
that was not the question, as you well know, Sir. The question was quite different. So I said to the Prime Minister:
-I am delighted to hear that-
And I am. I continued:
-but it is not the answer to my question. My question is quite simple. Docs the Prime Minister believe that it is appropriate for a relative of a Cabinet Minister to receive the benefit of an unlendered contract with the Government of Canada?
There were certain Hon. Members who, picking up on the nuances, together said: "Untendered", and the Prime Minister responded:
Mr. Speaker, you have a situation where a Canadian citizen tenders to the Government or-
"Tenders to the Government"; that was his second mistake. There is a problem here in communicating across the floor of the House. He continued:
-services are made available to the Government of Canada and public servants, pursuant to objective criteria, make a determination. I suppose that you may have a question as to whether the relatives of anyone in this House at any time can have any association with the Government, and it is a question which will be considered in the guidelines. But I think my hon. friend, in asking the question, which perhaps inadvertently casts aspersions on an agency should recognize that a half a million dollars a year of the taxpayers' money has been saved because of that and I think Canadian taxpayers are delighted.
I put that on the record to show that in spite of the simplicity of the question, it seems to be impossible to get an answer from the Prime Minister. It was not a complicated question. It was not even double-barrelled. It had no preamble, neither did it have any reference to anything to do with guidelines. It made no reference to the public service. It made no reference to the benefits which flow to Canadian taxpayers. All it did was ask: Is it appropriate for a relative of a Cabinet Minister to receive the benefit from an untendered contract with the Government of Canada?
I believe the public of Canada has the right to know the answer to that question. I want to make something perfectly clear. I do not object to businesses having a relationship with the Government of Canada, provided that that relationship is arm's length and provided that any benefit which flows from that relationship should come from the proper tendering process. If it so happens that in one of those businesses there happens to be a relative of a government member or a Cabinet Minister, I do not object to that. I do not expect everyone immediately to leave every line of work simply because one of their relatives gets elected to the Government. I do not expect that everyone who happens to have a relative in Cabinet should be refused the opportunity to participate in the business of the nation. I do not suggest that that should be the case. I do suggest, however, that it should only be done in circumstances in which there is an open bidding and tendering arrangement and, if that company with that relative should win the tender, it should do so on the basis of whether it is the lowest price providing the highest service. That is all we are asking; that is all we ever asked. What aggravates me and what aggravates other people outside is that there has been no such response from the Government to deal with that question. That is what is wrong.
April 26, 1985

The Prime Minister tells us that he is going to bring about new guidelines, but let me put to you, Mr. Speaker, that nobody is asking for new guidelines. I do not mind if they bring in new guidelines. What in effect the Prime Minister is saying is that the old guidelines were not sufficient. I suggest the old guidelines were sufficient. The old guidelines say "avoidance of preferential treatment". That is on page 2, Article III, where it states:
Ministers shall not accord preferential treatment in relation to any official matter to relatives or friends or to organizations in which their relatives or friends have an interest.
It goes on to say, and this is important:
Ministers must also take care to avoid placing, or appearing to place, themselves under an obligation to any person or organization which might profit from special consideration or favour on their part.
You and I both know, Mr. Speaker, that Ministers do not operate independently. Ministers are part of a collective. That collective is known as the Cabinet. Each Cabinet Minister is responsible as part of the whole for the operations of the political business of Canada. Therefore, it is important, and I think the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre) will agree, that in matters such as the granting of the right to do business with the Government, careful checks should be made to ensure that no person appears to be given preferential treatment.
That, of course, is the essence of our argument in this regard. That is why the questions that I put were so carefully phrased. Had this been a tendered contract, had the firm of Lawson Murray submitted bids and had it been the winning company when the tenders were opened, we would not have had even a question, let alone an issue. We would not have asked for the kind of response from the Prime Minister that we have asked for. Neither would we have been put in a position, and we were put in the position, of embarrassing the Minister of Finance. We would have been able to accept that the business of Canada was being conducted according to the highest standards, as the Prime Minister frequently promised would be the case.
The Prime Minister can say, and sometimes does, that he was left with a terrible mess by the outgoing Government and that the practices of the outgoing Government were certainly no better than the practices that he is pursuing. The Prime Minister might say that the practices he intends to implement at some future date will be more severe and the guidelines more stringent and restrictive than the guidelines that were in place under the previous administration. That is fine. I commend him for that. I commend the Minister of Supply and Services, if he has any hand in developing the guidelines, if that be the case; but that of course is in the future and we are talking about the present.
It was the same Prime Minister who with great obvious concern appeared over television in a Leaders' debate during the election of the summer of 1984 when the then embarrassed Prime Minister, now Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), was trying to explain how he was stuck with the job
Supply
of making appointments that had been promised or announced by his predecessor. I remember well watching television as a clearly upset then Prime Minister, now Leader of the Official Opposition, said: "Look, I had no option. I was told if I didn't do it, the Government might fall, so I had to go ahead and do what I did. I mean I had to do it that way." I remember with all the flair that the Prime Minister is now known for that he leaned forward and said: "Sir, you had an option. You had an option to say no."
That was when this debate started. The Prime Minister then went on to tell the country that under his administration things would be done differently, that the highest degree of concern for the public would be exercised and displayed, that the Government would not allow the kind of actions that had previously been acceptable under the Liberal Government to continue under his Government. The public of Canada had every reason to believe that in all of the matters touching upon patronage and contracts the Government of Canada, this Government, would not pursue the same line pursued by the previous administration.
That has turned out quite different from the reality. The reality has been that this Government has followed in exactly the same way the patronage appointment route that was the order of the day under the previous administration. This Government has, I must say with some dismay, managed to find a place at the trough for almost every Tory bagman and for all defeated candidates. If they did not come to the trough, it was by their own choice because the opportunity was there. They have been able to reach out and find people who were incapable of withstanding the pressure of the availability of public funds for their own use. This Government has in fact betrayed the people of Canada. This Government has failed to do what it promised it would do.
This latest example serves to remind the public that what the Prime Minister says and what the Prime Minister does are frequently quite different. What the Prime Minister says, he expects Canadians to believe. When he does something else, he expects them to understand that he had no option. I suggest it is clear on its face that this action taken by the Minister of Supply and Services on behalf of the Government was wrong. This action undermines public confidence. This action should never have been contemplated. The Minister of Supply and Services should admit that that should not have been done, although perhaps within the guidelines it was not specifically excluded, although I suggest it was, and that the Government in this instance acted improperly and does not enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons in this regard.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, The Toronto Star in an editorial today indicated that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has a hard enough job to do without having to absorb unfair shots against his integrity from the Opposition. Does the Hon. Member agree with the position of The Toronto Start If so, would he like to withdraw the Opposition motion today?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have heard some pretty silly questions in my time. That one must come close to being the

April 26, 1985
Supply
silliest. Let me try to treat it as if it were serious. I have never, not on one single occasion, said a word about the Minister of Finance, not a word, on this matter. I have asked the Prime Minister if, as the head of the Government, he believes that that practice into which the brother-in-law of the Minister of Finance fell, and as a result of which the Minister of Finance becomes implicated as a third party, is acceptable in his mind. All I can say to the Hon. Member is if the Prime Minister had responded to my question, perhaps we would not have had a non-confidence motion. The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister, as he is wont to do, tries to substitute blarney for substance.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, The Toronto Star editorial also indicates that there is absolutely no evidence of impropriety in this case and that it is silly for the NDP to demand that the Minister of Finance step down. I wonder if the Hon. Member agrees with that as well.


Ian Deans: No, Mr. Speaker. It is clear to me that The Toronto Star misunderstands, but that is not unusual. If The Toronto Star were more cognizant of the way in which Parliament operates and the responsibilities that fall upon Cabinet Ministers individually and collectively, it would come to the conclusion that the impropriety lies in the fact that the Minister of Finance was aware that his brother-in-law had the contract but did nothing about it.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, as we know, there are all sorts of positions at the municipal level that are appointed by municipal Governments and there are positions at the provincial level appointed by provincial Governments. These appointments are made by whichever type of Government is in power, be it Liberal, Conservative or NDP. The same happens at the federal level.
If there were no Crown corporations or none of those enormous agencies and regulatory bodies, there would be far fewer positions to which people would be appointed. To be consistent, the Hon. Member would have to agree that we should have fewer positions.
The second dimension is this: Who should make those appointments? Does the Hon. Member want to take appointment making out of the hands of the Government of the day, a Government that can be turfed out of office, and put it into the hands of the bureaucrats? I would like to have the Hon. Member give me a genuine, constructive solution to the problem.
We either cut back on agencies or we put in a different mechanism for appointing. I would put the argument that I would rather have the responsibility for appointments in the hands of people who, if they abuse the responsibility, cna be turfed out, rather than in the hands of the bureaucrats.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member, I would like to indicate to him that the motion deals with the granting of an untendered contract. It has nothing to do with
the makeup of boards and commissions and nothing to do with whether there should be more or less of them. That is not relevant to our discussion today.
I have made it quite clear that what we are saying is that we do not expect that relatives of members of the Cabinet should be excluded from participating in the business of Canada. We say, however, that the only entry they should be allowed is through a tendered contract. They should only be permitted to take part if they bid against others and win. They should not be given or appear to be given preferential treatment. There should therefore not be the option open to give to family members of Cabinet Ministers contracts that others had no opportunity to seek. That is all we are suggesting and that is what is wrong with what happened.
Therefore, I say to the Hon. Member that if at some future time he wishes to deal with the matter of the numbers of boards and commissions and the makeup of boards and commissions, there is a great deal I would like to say about that. However, I do not want to try to do here today what the Prime Minister and others have tried to do over the course of the last few days, which is to try to obscure the only important and relevant question with regard to what happened with Lawson Murray.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question of tendering with the Hon. Member. He is probably aware that in the advertising business an advertisement for $100 is paid for at the rate of $85. There is a 15 per cent advertising agency commission. If ten advertising agencies had bid on this untendered contract, they would have all bid $234,000 and would have all netted the same advertising commission which would be 15 per cent of that. In that case, how would the Hon. Member structure his tendering conditions? All agencies would tender the same amount. Would the Hon. Member not admit that the Government of the day is entitled to take into account in that tendering process trust and ability and that the money of which the Hon. Member is making a great deal would be the same to all advertising agencies?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, that is in fact an excellent question. I agree that there are situations in which tendering is not appropriate, but in those situations family members of Ministers of the Crown cannot be given the contract. That is the difference. Yes, there are situations in which it is not necessary to tender because of the size of the contract or for other reasons. However, I am saying that under those circumstances family members of Ministers of the Crown are excluded from participating. That is all I am saying.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member just mentioned that there was only one question. There is another question in which the people of Canada are very interested. Every Government has various ways of handling contracts. They are not all done by tender and they are not all done by competition. Some are done by invitation. NDP Governments do that the same as every other Government.
April 26, 1985

The Hon. Minister looked into the situation and found that he could save half a million dollars for the Canadian people. That is an important consideration. What difference does it make if the contract goes to a relative or not if the Minister can save half a million dollars? What difference would it have made if that firm had bid and had still showed a saving of half a million dollars? The Hon. Member forgets all about that. This matter is an attempt to save money for the people of Canada and the people of Canada could not care less which firm happens to get the contract as long as it does the job efficiently and saves money for the taxpayer.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite wrong, of course. In fact, the Hon. Member's colleague, the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), answered his question in part. Any advertising agency would have bid the same amount. As the Hon. Member for Simcoe North pointed out, there is a schedule which advertising agencies follow and therefore they receive x number of dollars in return for doing work under a contract of whatever size. Therefore, the fact of the matter is that the saving is obscure.
Nevertheless, what must be recognized is that the question is about the appearance of preferential treatment. Since any other advertising agency could have undertaken the work on the same basis, it would have been easy for the Government not to have put on the payroll the brother-in-law of the Minister of Finance in order to make sure-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that the time for questions and answers has expired.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, this is the end of an amazing week in which there has been a spectacle of sanctimony, outrage and indignation. What happened is so outrageous that not only one Opposition Party but both Opposition Parties felt they must move non-confidence in the Government. The Government, horror of all horrors, saved the taxpayers $500,000 per year. For that it deserves to be tossed out.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), that great man of virtue as demonstrated last June with his arrangement with the previous Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, first introduced the motion. I thought we were going to be debating his motion. When I read the Order Paper yesterday, it included a motion from the Leader of the Opposition which read:
That this House condemns the Government for its serious misuse of its power to make appointments and to let contracts and, in particular, for its disregard of conflict of interest guidelines in this and other matters.-The Leader of the Opposition.
He then withdrew that motion. There is one of two explanations for that, Mr. Speaker. Either he is slow of wit and he realized after he saw it in print how outrageous it would be for him to put something like that on the Order Paper, or he has made another arrangement with Mr. Trudeau.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I could just as easily rise on a question of privilege. The Hon. House Leader of the New Democratic Party will acknowledge that
Supply
the motion that is being debated today is, by agreement of the Opposition Parties, the NDP motion. To make that kind of spurious allegation is beneath even the Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a point of order relating to relevancy which I hope the Minister will recognize.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, what we are debating today is the agreement which was reached, presumably after the Leader of the Opposition-who incidentally is not here; and because the behaviour of the Government has been so outrageous, only six members of the Opposition are here-


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


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe on a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that he cannot refer to the presence or absence of Members in the House. He ought to make a relevant speech. If he has a good defence, then he should make it and cut the rhetoric on this shameful action by the Government.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I assume that I will be allowed to give my speech. I realize that the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) has a sensitive nature and a delicate persona and finds this very difficult. I can understand his concern.
The House Leader of the New Democratic Party said that in the opinion of this House the granting of an untendered contract to the brother-in-law of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) by the Government of Canada is an unacceptable action. It was so unacceptable and so terrible that he was forced to introduce a motion of non-confidence in the House. There is nothing so sanctimonious as a socialist, especially a socialist who is out of office. I regret that I do not have the time to talk about the performance of socialist Governments in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
A great deal was made this week of the violation of the guidelines. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) read the guidelines which stated:
Ministers shall not accord preferential treatment in relation to any official matter to relatives or friends-
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition raised the same matter. He said that on that basis the Minister of Finance should resign. It was conveniently forgotten that the Minister of Finance had nothing to do with that contract. The contract was let by the Department of Supply and Services. That is my Department. I am the responsible Minister. If 1 were enriching my relatives in some way, then the Member might well have a substantial question. However, that did not bother the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, and it certainly did not bother a succession of Liberals who stood up in phoney indignation demanding the Minister's resignation.

April 26, 1985
Supply
The wonderful Liberals! The Liberals have short memories.
1 would like to read into the record a letter of April 28, 1980 from the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau to the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen. In that letter Mr. Trudeau wrote:
I would remind you of our decision not to apply the requirements of these guidelines to our spouses and dependent children.
Note the phrase "spouses and dependent children". That came from the Prime Minister of the Liberal Government of the day. Now they say that if a person happens to be married with dependent children, or if his sister is married with dependent children, then that person has committed an outrageous crime. It is an outrageous crime, the appearance of which is so heinous that there is no choice but to submit to this vote of non-confidence and accept that the people of Canada no longer have confidence in that person.
Aside from the sanctimony and outrageous hypocrisy that that sort of attitude exhibits-


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


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe on a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Minister knows that he cannot accuse Members of the House of hypocrisy. I know he is familiar with the definition of that word, but he cannot use it and he knows that.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Hon. Member cannot listen without his mouth being in motion. That is the problem.
Throughout the outrage, phoney sanctimony and hypocrisy which we have heard all week no one has acknowledged the fact of the performance of Lawson Murray. They have said: "Never mind the performance. Performance does not matter. What matters is appearance, not performance." Thank goodness the public of Canada would never accept the outrageous premise that if good paint is put on and it looks good it does not matter what is underneath and what the real value is. This Government operates on the basis of value for money. We are trustees of the taxpayers' money and that is how we will act.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Lawson Murray, which, I repeat, was selected by the Ministry of Supply and Services, was paid the outrageous commission of $26,000 to continue a contract which we inherited from the previous administration. One of the principals of the Liberal agency which had the contract for years said that it was a gravy train and an unnecessary activity. But that agency did not inform the Government of that fact. It collected fees for all those years. Have we heard any outrage from members of the NDP about that fact? It is only taxpayers' money which has been wasted, so why should they get outraged when they can concentrate on appearance? That is so much more important to them than substance. Well, it is not more important than substance. Performance is what counts, not appearance. I repeat, the appearance in this case, if we
look at it with fair eyes, is proper. It is my contract with Lawson Murray on behalf of the Bank of Canada which is a Crown corporation. That will stand up to examination by any fair-minded and reasonable Canadian.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: For the glorious sum of $26,000, Lawson Murray, which we selected on the basis of having people we know and trust-and they have demonstrated that trust, and principle I might add-and on the basis of that agency having the experience and expertise in the area of representing financial institutions, wrote to the Bank of Canada on February 11. That letter included a list of the newspapers in which the ads were placed. The letter read:
This list provides a great deal of waste circulation and duplication-
The letter went on to say that the effective cutting of the unnecessary activities would save the Government $415,000 a year. The letter continued:
Furthermore, we believe that the placement procedure could be streamlined to save money.
The letter recommended a procedure to the Government in which more money could he saved. I know that it is only taxpayers' money and that that is insignificant to the New Democratic Party, because it only considers appearances to be important. The letter continued:
While I would regret the end of our association and the loss of revenue to Lawson, Murray Limited, I do not feel that we would be responsible were we to advise you differently.
When a Member of Parliament cannot bring himself or herself to recognize what value the taxpayers get from that kind of responsible advice, when they say that it is immaterial and that they do not care about the performance, and instead use spurious and righteous indignation, then that Member of Parliament ought to lose the confidence of the electors because he or she has lost all sense of propriety and responsibility.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: In his remarks, the Hon. Member, because he wanted to be fair, said that they do not object to family members participating in Canadian business, provided they are not enriched by the taxpayers. I agree.


Ian Deans: I did not say that.


Harvie Andre: Well, provided they are not given the preferential accord, or whatever is the language of the guidelines. I do not know if the Hon. Member knows about what he is talking or suggesting. Of course, obviously he is also referring to relatives by marriage. I checked that out, and in the case of my family it represents 20 companies which cannot do business with the Government. My exempt staff are also under the same conditions, as they ought to be, which represents for my office alone 200 companies. Since there are 39 or 40 Ministers, we are talking about several thousand companies which should be excluded from participating in these contracts.
April 26, 1985

The Hon. Member talks about "tendered" or "untendered".


Ian Deans: That's the key.


Harvie Andre: What he is suggesting is we would not have been able to negotiate with Spar Aerospace to build the Canadarm if anyone in Spar was related by marriage to anyone-


Mr. Althouse:: No, no, untendered contracts.


Harvie Andre: That was non-competitive.


Charles Joseph Clark: An exact parallel.


Harvie Andre: The CF-18s which were purchased by the previous Government have a life cycle of 20 or 30 years. We have no choice but to buy the parts for those aircraft on a non-competitive basis because there is only one supplier. The Hon. Member, to take his argument to its logical conclusion, is suggesting that no relative of anyone employed at McDonnell Douglas of Canada Ltd., Canadair, de Havilland, all of the producers of parts for the CF-18-because they are purchased on a non-competitive basis-have any right to participate in Government business. That is what the Hon. Member is saying. Does he have any idea of what he is talking about? I don't think he has thought this through to its logical conclusion.


Ian Deans: I thought it through.


Harvie Andre: This Government is aware of the potential for abuse. We do not want it to appear-we certainly don't want it in the reality-that we are using taxpayers' money to do anything else but give them the best value for it. That is our responsibility. So what do we do in cases where we are forced to enter into contracts by the circumstances of the business, advertising, by the circumstances of the situation, CF-18s, or by sole source situations because we want to buy Canadian rather than go offshore? Literally tens of thousands of those situations come up each year. What do we do to protect the public and to ensure that it gets full value for its money? We publish it. We operate in a fish bowl. Anyone through the freedom of Information Act can get access to the contracts, and it can only be done under the Freedom of Information Act because we want to protect confidential information. The amount of the contract is published weekly. I sent a copy to the Hon. Member's office free of charge. We charge other people to recover the costs. He can look at that document every week to find out if there is anything unfair or suspicious. If, for example, my brother has a contract with a Government Department-it won't happen because he is not in any business which would affect that but if anything like were to come up-the Hon. Member not only has the right, he has the responsibility to hold me to account in the House of Commons as the Minister responsible for government contracts. He has the right and the responsibility to make me defend the expenditure of those public funds and to ensure that the taxpayer received full value. I have said it before this week, Mr. Supply
Speaker, and I will say it again; any time 1 can make a contract with a firm like Lawson Murray Ltd. which is going to save the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, I am going to do it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: That is what happens when you are in a situation where you cannot open a coupon or envelope and give the contract to the low bid. You have to start applying things like trust and experience. If the Hon. Member was hiring a lawyer, an accountant, a physician or any professional service whatsoever, where tendering is just not possible given the nature of the service, is the Hon. Member seriously suggesting that it would make prudent sense for him, or for the Government, who are interested in the outcome and result, to immediately dismiss everyone we know because there might be a conflict?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, get off it. Speak to the motion.


Harvie Andre: Does it make sense that we immediately dismiss everyone we trust?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Tell us about Commonwealth Publishing in Saskatchewan.


Harvie Andre: That is absolutely absurd. What you want when you are hiring a lawyer is someone who is going to get you off the charge or win the negotiations with whomever you are negotiating. The Hon. Member knows that. If he is hiring an accountant or a management consulting firm, he wants someone he can trust and who will do a good job. We want exactly the same thing. It's not secret. It's published. We want the Hon. Member to look at it, to examine it and make decisions objectively on the results.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We just did.


Harvie Andre: I wonder whether one of those Hon. Members opposite will stand up and admit that Lawson Murray, instead of being vilified, ought to be applauded for the responsible actions it took in fulfilling this contract?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Sanctimonious socialists really get to me. I suppose being a socialist, an NDPer, and being totally indifferent to taxpayers' money is one and the same thing. One would certainly think so looking at the performance of the socialists when they are in office. In Saskatchewan, Don Keith, a defeated New Democrat, was appointed general manager of the Saskatchewan Development Fund. I wonder if that was competed for. How about Louis Roy, a defeated New Democrat, who was retained by the Department of Northern Saskatchewan as a $4,000 a month consultant? Consultant contracts are not tendered, and they shouldn't be. Perhaps he's a good guy and I regret, in a sense, having to raise this point. The point must be made to Hon. Members opposite. When the performance is good, when there is a clear saving of taxpayers'

April 26, 1985
Supply
money, and when we have complied absolutely with the guidelines in every way, shape and form, how can those Hon. Members have the gall and temerity to suggest that this House has non-confidence in that kind of performance? That is absolutely absurd.
The list of examples from that bunch of Liberals over there, who are not there at the moment, and that bunch of New Democrats over there-


An Hon. Member:: And they are not all there either.


Harvie Andre: -who are not there either, is really something to behold.
In the few moments I have left to me, Mr. Speaker, 1 just want to take advantage of this debate to mention another factor which I hope those Hon. Members opposite will be generous enough to recognize with respect to the performance of this Government. I refer to the area of advertising in general. 1 have explained in this House-I do not have time to repeat the explanation-the improvements we are making in the situation which inherited. But I also want to say for the benefit of Hon. Members of the House and others that the over-all advertising-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: May I respectfully, for the benefit of the Minister, inform him that he is making his closing remarks. He has a couple of seconds.


Harvie Andre: 1 thought it was two minutes, Mr. Speaker.
Not only have we done a better job since September 17 of managing advertising, as evidenced by the performance of companies like Lawson Murray, but we are putting in a process which is better. We are reducing the over-all levels very significantly. In the current fiscal year just starting, advertising will be reduced by 30 per cent over that contracted for by the previous administration. There will be no geese flying into the sunset and friends of the Liberal Party collecting ridiculous fees for ridiculous ads needed by no one and serving no taxpayer at any time.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, methinks the Minister doth protest too much today. Surely, the Minister cannot-
[ Translation\


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At I p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments? The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse).


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, today we have heard two stories from the Government side of the House with regard to the issuing of contracts for media work and advertising. The Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) pointed out that there is a very standard process throughout the industry whereby the various advertising firms simply add 15 per cent on to the bids for their services. He suggested that, had the contract been tendered, the Government would have had 10 identical bids. Yet when the Minister made his speech, he indicated that he had somehow succeeded in saving almost $.5 million, which puts the analysis of the industry by the Member for Simcoe North into some doubt.
Would the Minister please try to clarify the situation? Was he talking about the same kind of savings, that is, savings on the share that the various advertising agencies would have taken for their services? Or was he simply talking about a reduction in the amount of advertising that the Government proposed to do?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, actually I mentioned all three in terms of advertising, the agency fees, how much goes to the advertising agency, and how much goes to the newspapers, television, or media outlet. Standard practice for generations has been that if you or I buy a half page ad in a newspaper for $4,000, that is what it costs. However, when an advertising agency does that it gets a 15 per cent discount. That discount is to pay their costs of composition, creativity, billing and overhead. That 15 per cent is standard. When the Government undertakes an advertising program on behalf of Tourism Canada, for example, it is contracting for so many minutes of television time, so many pages of magazine space, and so on. The commission goes to the advertising agency. There is no opportunity for cost competition. It is a professional service like any other, be it lawyers, physicians, or accountants. You are looking for quality.
I said in the House as early as last January that we are in the process of introducing a new process under which quality assessment for big contracts or departments that have large advertising budgets will be made by a panel of civil servants. With regard to the Lawson Murray contract specifically, that was a small contract. The commission to Lawson Murray was only $26,000, I think. You cannot really have a competition in a situation like that because the cost of pitching, if you brought in three, four, or five bidders, would exceed the total profit available. It would be a terrible waste of funds. You allocate that based on trust, knowledge of the individuals, and their experience.
This firm was experienced in handling financial institutions. They undertook to carry on this program which had been underway for years. They picked it up, carried it on, and said that they could reach 100 per cent of the market that we were trying to reach with these information ads with far less advertising. They showed us a new procedure for doing it. Because that advice was new to the Government, we were able to accept it and save $500,000 a year as a result of that particular judgment.
April 26, 1985

One might say that somebody else might have made that judgment. Well, it has been going on for years and no one did. I happen to think that if you select someone you know and trust and who has experience, you are likely to get good value. That is the basis I would use for selecting a lawyer, if 1 needed one, or an accountant. That is the basis we used for selecting this advertising agency. We got good value. We saved $500,000 a year for the taxpayers because they brought this to our attention based on their expertise and knowledge. We have a trust relationship. They are an honourable firm, which we knew, and that is why we hired them.


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre). Yesterday, in response to a question by the Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), he mentioned that there are some 350,000 contracts a year that go through his office. That works out to approximately 1,700 every working day. He further elaborated that only the contracts in excess of $1 million go to his desk while the rest are obviously handled through the normal channels. Could he elaborate on how many were and were not tendered and how many were over $1 million?
Let me also ask a hypothetical question. If the Minister were to investigate the brother-in-law of every Member in the House, for instance, how many people would he have to investigate with 350,000 contracts a year?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the figure of 350,000 is about right. Less than a thousand of those contracts would actually come to my desk. Those are contracts that are above $1 million. Those contracts between $250,000 and $1 million are under the authority of my officials at the director general level and officials who work for the director generals are responsible for contracts below $250,000.
Obviously, we cannot investigate the familial relationship of people we do business with in the way suggested by the Opposition. It is impossible. For instance, we frequently buy typewriters and computers from IBM. It would be absurd to ask IBM, with its thousands of employees, if any of its employees are related to someone who has something to do with the Government. That cannot be done.
If the Opposition are really worried about impropriety, they should be concerned about all of these civil servants, director generals and so on, who have relatives, both blood and by marriage, and who have my delegated authority.
The way we try to avoid misuse is as I have explained it. Every week a magazine is published with those contracts that have been let by my Department. We depend on a vigilant opposition and a vigilant media to point out that someone's uncle may have received a contract. We will look at it to see if there is value for money.
I repeat that the mandate of my Department and the mandate I accept wholeheartedly and will not abandon, no matter how much I am pushed by the NDP, is a mandate of
Supply
value for money. In this contract we got extraordinary value for money.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say to the Minister that I agree with him 100 per cent. One of his responsibilities, perhaps his primary responsibility, is to ensure that we get value for money. There has not been any attempt made by me or anyone in this Party to suggest that we did not get value for money. We have no intimate knowledge of whether or not we did.
I am prepared to concede that it may well be true that we got the value. That is not the issue that we are trying to address. We are trying to address the whole question of the appearance of preferential treatment. I thought I made it quite clear, and no matter how often the Minister says it I am sure he knows that no one is suggesting that just because someone works for some company it automatically excludes the company from Government work. We are saying in essence that where principals of a company stand to benefit directly from the contract-not indirectly benefit through wages-that contract should only be given as a result of a tendering process.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The period for questions and comments is now over. Resuming debate.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my hon. friend, the Deputy Prime Minister, (Mr. Nielsen) was here today. I rise to speak to this motion in order to review objectively the remarkable series of events which have transpired in this dossier, particularly in the office of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
These events apparently began shortly after the Government assumed office in September, 1984. I would like to emphasize at the outset that my interest in rising to talk to this motion is not in any way to question the integrity of the Minister of Finance, as I indicated earlier in the House. My concern is with the judgment of the Minister in the circumstances that have been described and with the competence of the Department, the Minister and the administration.
I would like to underline the disarray into which the public administration is falling if this is indeed to be a precedent of management in offices of various Ministers. I suggest that we cannot ask Canadians to accept a Government that plays fast and loose with systems which have been established and with guidelines and practices that are well known. Those guidelines and practices are not meant to protect the integrity of the Minister but the integrity of the entire system and the Government itself.
I did not rise to talk about patronage per se. We know the view of the Government with respect to patronage. We have learned that there is no public trough wide enough or deep enough to satisfy the aspirations of all the living, breathing Tories who are to participate during the period of the Government. Favouring members of the families of Cabinet Ministers might be challenged as discriminatory by some of the Tories on the back-benches, but I will leave that to them to address.

April 26, 1985
Supply
Again, I do not want to discuss family relationships. The fact that the contract we have heard so much discussion about and which is referred to in the motion was not tendered is not an issue which I intend to address. It seems to me that those facts-the relationships the lack of tender and so on-speak for themselves.
Indeed, they speak eloquently about the attitude of the Government which Canadians elected on September 4 toward patronage and toward rewarding the faithful. I understand from the latest count that the sacred pigs now exceed 1200 in number. That is also not the issue I wish to address this afternoon.
[ Translation]
1 would like to highlight some of the important facts in this case, to assess the lack of efficiency in administering departments under the Progressive Conservative Government. Mr. Speaker, first of all 1 may recall that last September, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) retained the services of Mr. Douglas Robson, Vice-President of Lawson Murray Ltd., a Toronto advertising agency. It seems Mr. Robson was retained to help organize the Minister's office. 1 may also point out, by the way, that Mr. Robson still is President of the Progressive Conservative Riding Association in the riding of the Minister of Finance.
It should also be pointed out that the President of the company, Mr. Douglas Lawson, is a brother-in-law of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and that his wife, the Minister's sister, sits on the board of directors of the company.
Mr. Robson was in the Minister's office, according to what we have heard here in the House of Commons, from September 17 until at least the end of October. It was "approximately" the end of October. That might mean some time in November, the end of the month or a week before or after, we do not really know, and I would like to have clarified. During that time, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Robson was not paid by the Government of Canada, although it seems there was a verbal agreement. In fact the Minister said as much in answer to a question in the House and I quote:
We had a verbal understanding that he would be paid, and in fact he was not paid.
So he was not paid by the Government during that period.
Mr. Speaker, another fact is that Mr. Robson was sworn in, that is, he was bound by an oath of secrecy, but he never signed the conflict of interest guidelines, which I think should be a basic requirement for people in exceptional employment. And then a few days later, Lawson Murray Limited, the Toronto advertising agency I mentioned at the beginning of my speech and to which Mr. Robson belonged, received a contract worth $234,000. I may add, Mr. Speaker, that during that time Mr. Robson remained employed by this advertising agency, in the private sector. In fact, the contract was for the Bank of Canada, an agency or organization that falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance.
I can understand Government spokesmen throughout Question Period this week attempting to defend the facts on the floor of the House of Commons, but any sensible person exercising a modicum of common sense and judgment would recognize that the facts in themselves are indefensible. The concern here has to be surely that this kind of situation not be repeated.
The Ministry of Finance, as all Members know, outside of the Prime Minister's office itself is the most sensitive Ministry in Government. I would say with all due respect to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Minister of National Defence, that it has a level of sensitivity even exceeding that of the Minister's, the major department for which he is responsible.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot have people from the private sector engaged as volunteers to work in the office of Ministers, who are not on the Government payroll, who have not signed the conflict of interest guidelines, and who are sworn. We are told that Mr. Robson did not have access to secret documents. Having been a Minister of a Government myself, I find that quite remarkable because that is precisely why all personnel, exempt staff and others, not only take the oath of office, but are required to sign the conflict of interest guidelines. We cannot leave the perception with the Canadian public that private individuals are retained on such a basis by any Ministry, and in this case the Ministry of Finance, in a position to have access to secret and sensitive information and are not bound to observe the conflict of interest guidelines.


Philip Derek Lewis: Naturally you threw money at them.


Donald James Johnston: I am not sure who said that, but I will find out. I will respond in due course.


Philip Derek Lewis: It was me.


Donald James Johnston: There is the offender. There will be a period of questions afterward, Mr. Speaker. I know that Members of this House will be fair in the assessment of these facts. 1 know individually and collectively they will applaud the replies given by their Ministers on the front-benches when questions are put to them on this very sensitive and difficult matter; I realize that. I realize that is the reality of a political alliance and solidarity across the floor of the House. But I ask each of them to search deep within their own consciences to determine whether that is the way they expect the Government of this nation to be run. I do not believe they approve of these facts any more than we do on the Opposition benches or any more than the people of Canada do, who have commented on the facts that have been brought to their attention.
Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that not only did Mr. Robson enjoy this rather unique privilege, this probably unprecedented position in a Ministry and as I said, the Ministry of Finance, but these events happened during the period when that very Ministry was preparing its November economic statement
April 26, 1985

which was a mini-Budget. That mini-Budget, that statement, was delivered in this House of Commons on November 8.
Mr. Robson in fact worked for the Ministry of Finance without pay. He had a verbal agreement to be paid which apparently was not honoured for reasons that have not as yet been explained to us. In any event, he was there during that particularly sensitive period, a period no less sensitive, I suggest, than the period we are now in leading up to the presentation, God willing, of a Budget finally, some time in the latter part of May, we are told during the week of May 20. I cannot help note en passant that 1 had to learn that fact by reading the newspapers rather than hearing it here on the floor of the House of Commons-


Mrs. McDougall:: You are never in the House.


Donald James Johnston: -where the announcement should have been made.
In any event, I come back to the point that this kind of shoddy, shabby administrative practice cannot be condoned. I would hope that the Deputy Prime Minister who is here today and who is known for his concern with propriety and with process will see to it that this kind of thing does not repeat itself, that Ministers are brought into line, that we do not have these volunteers who come in but do not sign conflict of interest guidelines, who work in sensitive areas and go back to their firms on whose payrolls they remain.
In this case there is the added question of the contract. The reason 1 have not mentioned the contract of $234,000 is that excluding the contract, excluding the relationship with the brother-in-law, excluding the relationship with the sister who is on the board of directors-all of that apart-we cannot condone this kind of administrative approach, this kind of management approach, this kind of abuse, if you like, this playing, as I said earlier, fast and loose with the well-established traditions of Government. That cannot be tolerated, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker. 1 know, the Deputy Prime Minister knows, all the Ministers on the front-bench and all the Members on the back-benches know that it cannot be honestly defended.
We know, those of us who have had the privilege of serving in the Government as Members of the Cabinet, how Ministerial offices work. The Deputy Prime Minister became quite exercised when I suggested that Mr. Robson was not supervised. Let me elaborate on that point.
We have been told that Mr. Robson did not have access to secret information. I cannot say whether he did or did not. What I do know is that the Minister himself has declared on the floor of this House that he was particularly pre-occupied during that period, that it was a very busy period in his life, if I recall his precise words, and that he was obliged to spend a good deal of time in Washington; that he had invited Mr. Robson to organize his office in some kind of administrative capacity which has not been explained in detail. Some information has been offered but very little in detail so as to know exactly what Mr. Robson did. He was not there as a paid employee; hence there was apparently no master and servant
Supply
relationship. I do not know who was supervising him, if the Minister himself was not. He maintains that he had a chief of staff who was there. Was the chief of staff going to supervise Mr. Robson, this volunteer from the private sector who probably had more experience of working with the Minister, because of his prior experience, than the chief of staff himself? If that is the case, why was so much emphasis placed upon the oath? That in itself troubled me, the fact that this gentleman was working under oath. That must have been in anticipation of the fact that he might have access to secret documentation, but he did not sign a conflict of interest guideline.
Apart from the other issues which we have heard discussed, apart from the brother-in-law, apart from the untendered contract, apart from all of that, we have here a matter of fundamental administration. It is that issue which I have tried to address in these brief comments.
I must say that I am pleased the Deputy Prime Minister is here. This is not the time, I say to him, to resurrect old grievances and to argue about patronage which existed in the past.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: The issue with which I am dealing is: How on earth are the Ministers operating their Departments? He, as the Deputy Prime Minister, has to step in to ensure that it is done and to ensure that there is no recurrence. As I said this morning in the House-and I repeat it because I think it is worth reflecting on for a moment-we have had a tradition of people coming in and rendering service during particular periods in this country. I know the Deputy Prime Minister has been able to gather together a number of very prominent Canadians to serve on a committee designed to try to find cuts in programs. We look forward to having the Deputy Prime Minister table the results of that committee's deliberations. I am sure those people have had access to certain materials, but I am also sure the Deputy Prime Minister has seen to it that they have either not been given access to anything which would put them in conflict or that they will be respecting conflict of interest guidelines.
This morning I mentioned the famous dollar a year men who stepped forward during the unfortunate period of World War II to offer their services to the Canadian Government for a dollar a year. Here we have, as I said, a Mr. Robson who offered his services apparently free, although there was some verbal understanding which was not followed through on, and then immediately subsequent to leaving the office of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), his firm, Lawson Murray, Limited of Toronto received an unsolicited advertising contract in the amount of $234,000. If that does not raise in Hon. Members' minds some questions as to administrative practice in the Ministry of Finance and in other Ministries, if similar events are taking place, I do not know what can.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) referring

April 26, 1985
Supply
to Members reading newspapers on the floor of the House of Commons. I would tell him that we are all quite interested in the editorial in today's edition of The Toronto Star which referred to the unfair criticism of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). The Hon. Member will know that that is not a newspaper which often supports our Party.
I can also understand the Hon. Member's concern when he finds volunteers coming forward to help our Party because, after all, the Liberals paid hacks to do the same thing. During the course of his remarks the Hon. Member asked whether the country could afford this type of Government. I want to ask him specifically which he prefers. Does he prefer a Liberal Government which increased Government advertising expenditures from $47 million in 1982-83 to $67 million in 1983-84 and to $77.5 million in 1984-85, to a Government such as the Conservative Government which contracted with an advertising agency that came up with a recommendation suggesting that we not do it any more and save taxpayers money? Would the Hon. Member tell the House and the country whether he suggests that a Government is responsible if it goes from $47 million in Government advertising to $77.5 million in Government advertising, or is it more responsible to have a Government that contracts with people who come back and say, "Don't do this again; it is a waste of money"? Which does the Hon. Member prefer?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) has raised quite a remarkable red herring. He knows from my own record as President of the Treasury Board and as one who implemented the Lambert Commission report that no one is more concerned with value for money for Canadian taxpayers than I am. On that we have complete agreement.


Philip Derek Lewis: But you were a minority in the Liberal Government.


Donald James Johnston: That is not the issue, that is not the issue. If the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre) is able, in the exercise of his functions, to save money for Canadian taxpayers and still deliver a good service, so be it; that is fine. As far as the editorial in The Toronto Star is concerned, which seems somehow to have found its way into the preamble to that question, all 1 can say is that I never thought I would see the day when a member of the Conservative Party would cite The Toronto Star as an authority. That must be the progressive part of the Progressive Conservative Party.
Let me ask the Hon. Member a question which I know he is not obliged to answer. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Supply and Services breaking his arm patting himself on the back for the $500,000 he had saved. I see that he is now in the House. 1 cannot find it in Hansard, but I heard him say distinctly in the House that he had saved taxpayers a ton of money. He nods his head, perhaps to agree that that was the language he used.


Harvie Andre: $500,000 a year.


Donald James Johnston: He used the term "a ton of money". I would ask the Minister of Supply and Services, if I had the opportunity, whether the increase in the budget of the Office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) by $2 million would represent not less than four tons of money. That is as much a red herring as the question posed by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a quick question for the Hon. Member. As past President of the Treasury Board, could he tell us exactly what were the guidelines or what was the process to examine every untendered contract with in-laws? What system was in place when he was the Minister to look at every contract to see whether an in-law was involved?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the guidelines are printed in the regulations of the administrative policy branch of the Treasury Board. The Minister of Supply and Services has access to them. To be quite honest, I do not recall specifically any guideline which refers to in-laws per se. I do not think that is the issue. It is one of conflict of interest guidelines. The issue is: Why did the firm of Mr. Robson, who worked in the Minister's office and who did not sign those conflict of interest guidelines, receive that contract? Had he signed those conflict of interest guidelines, the Hon. Member knows full well that he would have been bound by them and unable to deal with that particular Department or any agency of that Department for a two-year period. That is the issue here in terms of the guidelines.
Also this particular individual, as 1 pointed out in my comments, had access to sensitive materials in that office to which he had no business having access. I hope the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) would agree with me that we cannot afford to have offices of Ministers flowing with people from the private sector, and on the payrolls of private corporations assisting Ministers in these sensitive areas, and not being subject to any conflict of interest guidelines. They should not be there anyway, never mind the conflict of interest guidelines.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: As past President of the Treasury Board, is the Hon. Member providing this Government with the advice that it is practical to have every contract let by every public servant in the country examined for possible involvement of in-laws of Cabinet Ministers? Is that a practical, feasible proposal in his view after all his years of experience?


Donald James Johnston: I am sympathetic to the work-load of the Minister of Supply and Services, but surely the Hon. Member for Calgary West is not trying to excuse the contract given to Lawson Murray which has been described by spokesmen in the Ministry itself as pure patronage. Surely the Hon. Member for Calgary West is not positing before the House and the people of Canada, based on the facts that we have heard, that people were not aware of what Lawson Murray was and what the relationships were.
April 26, 1985

That surely is not what the Member for Calgary West is trying to put forward to basically create a smokescreen over the facts in this case. I am always prepared to give someone the benefit of the doubt. 1 said that I am not in any way trying to impeach the integrity, only the judgment, of the Minister of Finance. 1 know the Hon. Member for Calgary West well enough to know that he is being mischievous in even purporting to offer this House and the people of Canada such an explanation of those events.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member who has just spoken. I want to ask him two things. First, would it not be reasonable to assume that if members of the Cabinet were informed that contracts ought not to be let to the relatives of other members or to relatives of their own, that information could then be imparted to the relatives of various Cabinet Ministers? Second, is the Hon. Member aware, and I am sure he is from his previous role, that the guidelines under which he operated, "Avoidance of Preferential Treatment", state:
Ministers shall not accord preferential treatment in relation to any official matters to relatives or friends-
It goes on.


Harvie Andre: Read it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Read the part about spouses and children.


Ian Deans: That is at the end. That is a different section altogether dealing with an entirely different matter.


Harvie Andre: No.


Ian Deans: Yes, it is. It goes on in an entirely different manner to deal with that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It says they don't apply.


Ian Deans: Unfortunately, we are not talking about spouses or children.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. 1 hate to interrupt a good conversation-


Ian Deans: As usual, the Government House Leader and the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre) are wrong. Does the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) agree that a brother-in-law might just fit within the definition of relative, and not necessarily but certainly could fit within the definition of friend?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my friend from Hamilton Mountain puts his finger on the issue. That is the issue of preferential treatment. That surely is the issue. There are many competent relatives in this world who may come forward and tender, win contracts, provide value for money and there is no preferential treatment and no appearance of preferential treatment. The issue here is the clear appearance of preferential treatment, although I would say to the Hon. Member for
Supply
Hamilton Mountain, and I hope that he will agree with me, that there are many issues involved besides that one. That is why in my comments I wanted to focus on the administrative issues of this particular problem, the fact of having people in office without having signed conflict of interest guidelines, quite apart from the issue of preferential treatment and the patronage issues that are before us in this case.


Harvie Andre: How about if they are living together and not married?


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the previous speaker. When he was President of the Treasury Board, I am sure that he would not give contracts to any of his relatives. However, did he authorize contracts for Ed Lumley's relatives?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, as President of the Treasury Board I did not authorize contracts per se. The Minister of Supply and Services handled most of the contracts. There were obviously some contracts in our Department as there were in other Departments at the time. Again, that is not the issue-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.


Donald James Johnston: Do I not have the right to reply?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The time for questions and comments is now over. Resuming debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) reply to my colleague from Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) about the NDP generally being sanctimonious, righteous and pure. I believe those were the words he used. I remind him that it was not the New Democratic Party that laid out and set the high standards that have brought this issue to the attention of the Canadian public, the media and Members of Parliament. It was the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). It was he who was so unctuous and sanctimonious during the election campaign last summer. We did not lay out the high standards, the purity and sanctimony. It was the Right Hon. Member from Baie Comeau.
Quite honestly, we were glad to hear him set out a new, higher level of standards for people in public life, particularly people in the Government of Canada. This issue is before us now not because of anything that anybody in the Opposition has done or said or anybody else in the media or public of Canada has said, but as a result of what the Prime Minister had to say. To quote the Right Hon. Member when he was Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, addressing the then Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), he said: "You had an option, Sir, to say no and you chose to say yes to the old attitudes and the old stories of the Liberal Party". That was on July 25 last year.
At that time the present Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, said: "The vulgarity of the Liberal patronage machine is such that we are going to have to take a second

April 26, 1985
Supply
look at our partisanship. 1 think there is going to have to be coming from us an effort, not only an effort, a determination to get away from it once and for all."
Off the record, he said to the reporters, and was quoted as saying, and this is on the other side of the coin, "Let's face it, there is no whore like an old whore. If I had been in Bryce's position, I would have been right in there with my nose to the public trough with the rest of them." What we are faced with is the Ceasar's wife principle of not only being pure, but being seen to be pure.
We raised this issue in this motion today and no one on the Government side has yet addressed it. The motion is very narrow. It states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the granting of an untendered contract to the brother-in-law of the present Minister of Finance by the Government of Canada is an unacceptable action.
That is all it says. Hon. Members who have spoken up to this point have not addressed that. If one listened to and believed what the Prime Minister had to say last summer, and immediately following the election, that principle that would have been incorporated in guidelines or would have been followed even prior to written guidelines.
I remind the House of the practices of and what is lived up to in the British Parliament. If what occurred in the instance of the brother-in-law of the Minister of Finance had occurred in the British House, that Minister would have resigned the next day without even being asked to jump or without having to be pushed. A Minister of the Crown in the British Parliament would have done it of his own volition.
Nobody is questioning the Minister of Finance. He is an honest man, very capable. That is not in question. Even if one assumes, as I am prepared to assume, that the Minister had no knowledge whatsoever of his brother-in-law receiving an untendered contract, he would automatically have resigned. These things can happen to Ministers of the Crown from time to time. It has happened in many jurisdictions and there is nothing unusual about that. Sometimes a Minister may be a victim of the mistakes of those working under him or of the mistakes of a colleague, but in the final analysis he is the only one responsible.
I am sorry the Minister of Supply and Services has stepped out for a moment. If the Minister of Supply and Services failed to inform and consult the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) regarding who would receive the untendered contract, then the Minister of Supply and Services should resign because he failed to carry out his responsibilities and thus made a victim of his colleague the Minister of Finance. If one were to assume that the Minister of Supply and Services did not know that the firm that was to be awarded the untendered contract had in its midst the brother-in-law of the Minister of Finance, then obviously his officials failed to tell him, in which case there are some officials whose heads he should have on a platter. Even if these officials failed to tell him, he is still responsible and has only one recourse if he wants to live up to
the principles and traditions of the British Parliament, the majority of which we in this Parliament have followed for many decades.
Regarding the entire matter of appointments to government service, whether it be the civil service or a Crown corporation, I have always believed that the question to be asked is not so much what an appointee's political proclivities might be but what competence and abilities might be. Political affiliations or records should be secondary if the first two criteria of competence and capabilities have been met.
I do not expect a Conservative Government to appoint a lot of Liberals and NDPers to various boards, commissions and award them contracts. I would not expect a Liberal Government to appoint a lot of Conservatives and NDPers. I would not expect an NDP Government to appoint a lot of Liberals and Conservatives. When making Order in Council appointments, any Government must gather around it people who have the same political beliefs as the Government of the day. There is nothing wrong with that. One must have competent, capable advisers and employees at the senior levels who believe in the policies for which a Government was elected. Anyone who accepts an Order in Council appointment knows darn well that the odds are 99 to one that if there is a change in Government, he is out. That is one of the hazards of that kind of an appointment. There is nothing wrong with that.
We in Canada have not yet reached the level of sophistication, class and couth that exists in the British public service. In Britain, Deputy Ministers and heads of boards study the policies of all political Parties of that country. When the Government changes from one Party to another, because of the professionalism of the senior public service there is not a wholesale firing of Deputy Ministers and heads of boards. These professional senior civil servants are able to go to a new Cabinet Minister within a matter of weeks after his swearing in to say: "Here is your Party's policy on matters pertaining to this Department. We have researched it and here are several options that you can consider in order to implement your policy". That is what I call a professional public servant. Their own personal political preferences have nothing to do with it at all and it is highly unlikely that any of them would ever tell you what their preferences were in any case. There are senior public servants in the British Isles who have been employed for years and years after having been appointed by the Labour Party or the Conservative Party.
We have not yet reached that level of sophistication and maturity in this country. Until we do, the kinds of standards laid down by the Prime Minister himself, whether or not they are in writing yet, are known to every Member of the House and are certainly known to every member of the Cabinet. I am referring to what the Prime Minister said last summer during the election campaign. There is no use spending time discussing who got appointed to the Senate, as much as I would like to use up another half an hour discussing that. However, we have heard about that before so I will not belabour the point.
Some aspersions were cast by the Prime Minister and one or two other Hon. Members from the government side on the
April 26, 1985

records of NDP Governments in three different provinces. I cannot speak for Manitoba or British Columbia because I am not aware of all that went on there, although I am sure some of my colleagues could elucidate on that. However, having been Provincial Secretary of my Party in my province for seven years, part of which time my Party formed the Government, and having served on the Party executive in council during the years we were in government, I can say that no present or past President of the Saskatchewan NDP has ever been appointed to a position in the NDP Government, whether it be to a Crown corporation or a government department. No member of the Party's provincial executive has been appointed to an Order in Council position or a Crown corporation board since 1944. I challenge anyone to name one person who did.
I have listened to Members opposite as well as the Prime Minister express doubts about that. At the moment there is in the Province of Saskatchewan one Mr. George Hill, past President of the Saskatchewan Progressive Conservative Party, who was first appointed Chairman of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation. He has now been appointed to the bench. One Irving Goldenberg, previous President of the provincial Progressive Conservative Party, has now been appointed to the bench. By the way, someone I see frequently and know and like very well is Dr. Barootes, an excellent doctor and an excellent fund raiser for the Conservative Party. He is a very capable and nice man, there is no argument about that. He is, however, a past National President of the Progressive Conservative Party and has been appointed to the Senate. The Prime Minister is entitled to appoint whomever he wishes to the Senate. I am not complaining about that. However, I do not want to hear any Tories about the NDP appointing Party hacks.
One wonders and worries about the direction the Government and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) might want to take when it comes to medicare, hospitalization, deterrent fees and funding for hospitalization and medicare. 1 know that the hon. gentleman who has been appointed to the other place will not object because I have said this to him before in public. But Dr. Barootes is the guy who led the fight against medicare in Saskatchewan. He is the guy who led the "keep our doctors" committee. He is the guy who raised money to prevent medicare from being instituted in that province. There was a doctors' strike. One of the leaders of that strike was Dr. Barootes. Where is Dr. Barootes now? He has been appointed to the Senate by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who set these high standards during the last election campaign. He set those high standards quite rightly. We agreed with him. But when it came to meeting them, he appointed people who totally disagree with medical care which is publicly operated and funded. One has to wonder about the high principles which have been laid down by the Prime Minister.
We did not start this in this Parliament. The Prime Minister started it. The Minister of Supply and Service (Mr. Andre)
Supply
started it, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) sits by and quietly acquiesces.
The question has still not been answered by the Government as to whether or not, as the motion reads, the Government thinks that it is appropriate for a brother-in-law or any relative to be granted an untendered contract without the Minister concerned offering his resignation. That is what is in question. It has nothing to do with the abilities and capabilities of the Minister of Finance.
I knew about the Minister of Finance long before he entered this House. He once performed some excellent work on contract, for the NDP Government of Saskatchewan. We know he is capable. We knew that years ago, long before many Members opposite were in the House. That is not the question. The question is: Is it or is it not appropriate to allow an untendered contract to go to a close relative? That is the question which has yet to be addressed by anyone on the government side.
No one disagrees with the saving of half a million dollars. But that totally evades the question and the principle which was laid down in the unctuous and sanctimonious words of the Prime Minister during the election campaign of last summer. I would urge members of the Government to rise in their place to answer and to speak to the specific question in the motion. Do they or do they not think it is appropriate for a brother-inlaw of the Minister of Finance to receive an untendered contract, regardless of whether or not the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Supply and Services knew anything about it? Do government Members think that is appropriate? Second, should not one or both of those Ministers tender their resignations without having to be asked, pressured or put upon by Members in the Chamber, the media or the public?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to ask the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), having discarded several members of the executive of the Saskatchewan NDP, if he knows Mr. Matsalla who was the former NDP Minister of Resources in Saskatchewan and who was appointed as an advisor on potash to the NDP Government of Manitoba. But 1 will not do that.
The Hon. Member said that he expected the Progressive Conservatives to govern. He said that he expected us to deal with people whom we know and trust. He also said that he expected us to make competent appointments. Does the Member not admit that the ultimate in competence is when a person or a firm, which is appointed on the same fee-15 per cent-as any person or firm would get under a tendered process, comes back and says that what was requested had been performed according to the contract and makes the recommendation that it should not be done any more? Is it not the ultimate in competence when someone who receives a contract comes back and tells us not to spend the money that way again in order that the taxpayers' money can be saved? Is that not what we are all here for, no matter what Party we belong to?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I think it was very good of that particular firm to do that. That is the kind of thing which any

April 26, 1985
Supply
Government would like to hear. But we must return to the point.
I have had dealings with advertising agencies. I have discussed with Cabinet Ministers in the Province of Saskatchewan their dealings with advertising agencies. The onus is on that Cabinet Minister to tell the advertising agencies, no matter what their political stripe, about the program which they want to advertise and sell in order to educate and provide information to the public. The Cabinet Minister asks those advertising agencies to prepare a presentation, and two, five or ten advertising agencies might come forward with a presentation. If the agency about which the hon. gentleman spoke had come forward with a recommendation in its presentation that would save $500,000, and then submitted a tender, that would have been right on track. That would have lived up to the unctuous and sanctimonious conditions which were laid down by the Prime Minister in the election campaign of last summer. Don't give me any gears about that. I have been there. That kind of competent and capable advice is required. But how it is used is another matter. I submit that it was misused in an untendered process with a brother-in-law of the Minister of Finance, no matter how good the firm or how good the advice.


Mr. Schellenberg:: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with great interest to the comments which were made by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). He spoke quite eloquently about past practice. He said that he did not expect the Liberal Government to appoint Tories or NDP Members, or for a Conservative Government to appoint Liberal or NDP Members. I wonder if he could comment on the fact that this Government has appointed more Members from other Parties than any other Government before it? The Conservative Government has appointed Stephen Lewis as the Ambassador to the United Nations and Lloyd Francis as the Ambassador to Portugal. Indeed, does that not show that the Prime Minister did have an option in the way in which appointments were made?
Finally, indeed, when the Gallup poll indicates that 60 per cent of the people in Canada are proud to call themselves Conservatives, is it hard to find a Conservative to appoint?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, after the Hon. Member mentioned Stephen Lewis, I wish he would send me a list. Every political Party, when it has been in power in Canada, has appointed people from other political parties. There is nothing new about that. I could submit a list of the names of people which the NDP Government of Saskatchewan appointed when it was in power.


Some Hon. Members:: Name them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Governments have smartened up and recognized that there might be some people in other Parties who have something to offer and who can be of assistance to the Government of the day in a non-partisan manner. All smart political Parties make appointments of people from other Parties.
I would like to say that when the then Premier of Saskatchewan received words about the recommendation of the appointment of a former Liberal candidate, who proved to be an extremely competent and capable person in that field, he made the appointment. The Premier got bawled out by some CCFers for doing that, but he appointed the gentleman. He is still there. That goes back to 1962 and he is still there and is an excellent public servant. But that is not the problem and that is not what is at question. I wish the Hon. Member would read the damn motion. Does he think it is appropriate? If he thinks so, let him get up and say so. That is all we want to know.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my good friend across the way was making the comment that every Government has appointed members of other Parties. That is the way it has always been, both provincially and federally in this country.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Not always. I didn't say always.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Hon. Members opposite said, "Name them". Senator Jack Marshall was a fine and outstanding member of the Progressive Conservative Party from the riding of Humb-er-Port au Port-St. Barbe for a period of 12 or 14 years. He was named to the Senate by the former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau. I can think of Senator Duff Roblin who was named to the Senate by the same former Prime Minister. There was also a former Progressive Conservative Premier. Hon. Members opposite are not going to convince Canadians-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Don't use up all of my ten minutes.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I won't use all of your ten minutes. They will not convince Canadians in the slightest with that kind of silly attack. Because they have named two outstanding people, Stephen Lewis and Lloyd Francis, the Conservatives think that all of a sudden they have filled the quota. If the quota system is one Liberal, one New Democrat and 1,000 Tories, that will not convince anyone. Find more compelling arguments, if you can. That is my only argument. I wonder if my friend would agree.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you to the Progressive Conservative Government for the appointment of Stephen Lewis. I want to thank the former Liberal Government for appointing Mr. Justice Berger, Mr. Leggatt, John Gilbert, all former Hon. Members of this Chamber.


Ian Deans: Ed Schreyer.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, Ed Schreyer, the Governor General, and that had nothing to do with Ed Schreyer's politics. So we appreciate that.


Ian Deans: It's appropriate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We are not questioning that, Mr. Speaker. If a Government wants to appoint 20 people to the board of directors of Canadian National or Air Canada, it has a right
April 26, 1985

to do so. It has a right to appoint whomever they want to appoint. The question is not whether or not they are Conservatives. The question is, are they competent? Do they come from a cross-section of the population? If most of them happen to end up being Conservatives, so be it. If there is the odd Liberal or New Democrat there, okay. But the question is the competence. Do they represent a cross-section of the population and are they not just former presidents or former fund raisers of the Party? There must be something more to the appointments than that kind of a criterion.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I come back to the motion. It still has not been answered by those Hon. Members opposite. Do they or do they not think it appropriate to give an untendered contract to the brother-in-law of a Minister of the Crown? Do you or don't you? That's all.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member who just spoke. It is an issue not just of the personalities of individuals we are talking about here but it is an issue of the principles and preferential treatment of relatives, people who happen to be in offices and have access to information to which the ordinary person does not. I think that is the interpretation which should be put on this motion before us today.
But we can get into the other issue of patronage appointments. Just last week I heard that one of the wharfingers in my area, a fisherman who had fished for 27-some years, has been replaced. A wharfinger is a person who looks after the wharves, the ports and harbours, tying up the vessels and that sort of thing. He was replaced by a chicken farmer because the chicken farmer happened to belong to the Progressive Conservative Party.
The whole issue of getting very close to the appearance of preferential treatment is something that this House should take very seriously. All Parties should take it very seriously. As my friend, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), said today, no one is questioning the integrity of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). What we are questioning is the possibility of this appointment being perceived as preferential treatment. That is the issue about which the Hon. Member is speaking and that is the motion which is before the House here today.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak on this ludicrous motion. It is not only sanctimonious, it is pompous. The reason I am here wearing my red dress, Mr. Speaker, is that red is the colour of defiance, and I defy Hon. Members opposite to find anything wrong with the judgment and the integrity of the people from this side of the House.
1 know that the motion which was put forward by the New Democratic Party-which it expects us all to take with enormous seriousness-it is a serious topic. I would not deny that conflict of interest is a serious topic to discuss in this Chamber. However, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) who spoke just previously, pointed out that there were no contracts, no conflicts of interest, or anything done against the
Supply
public interest by the New Democratic Party of Saskatchewan.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: 1 didn't say that.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Well, let me just point out, Mr. Speaker, that-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: No Party officials got appointments.


Barbara Jean McDougall: No Party officials. Well, there are two advertising agencies, Dunsky Advertising Ltd., and Struthers Associates.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Not Party officials.


Barbara Jean McDougall: When the New Democratic Government was elected in Saskatchewan, it fired the old agencies,-


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


Barbara Jean McDougall: -and retained two small ad agencies, which had some modest affiliation with the NDP. Struthers was owned by two former executive assistants to NDP Ministers-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Actually there were three. You missed one.


Barbara Jean McDougall: -and Cameron Cooper, one of those principals, was the son of Marjorie Cooper, a former CCFMLA. Shucks, golly, gee whiz, isn't that a coincidence?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want the Hon. Minister to know that Cameron Cooper was not Marjorie Cooper's son.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Get your facts right, Barb.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Well, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cooper and Mr. Eaton, the other principal, had worked in a senior capacity with Elwood Cowley, who just happened to be the provincial campaign manager. Isn't that unusual?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He was a Cabinet Minister also.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Let me turn to some other topics, Mr. Speaker. I am here speaking on this motion as someone who has known our Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for 30 years. I know something about his judgment and his integrity. We went to university together. He was known then for his judgment and his integrity. The Hon. Minister of Finance, when he was a teenager, would not even sneak a cigarette behind the bicycle shed. He was a person of integrity then and he is a person of integrity now.


An Hon. Member:: What a boring guy.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barbara Jean McDougall: I want to add, Mr. Speaker, that also at school with us at the time was the new ambassador to the United Nations, Stephen Lewis, who I am sure would agree

April 26, 1985
Supply
that the Minister of Finance is a man of judgment and integrity.
I also knew the Minister of Finance as a competitor in the investment business. There is no one in the investment business in this country who does not know that the Minister of Finance was an honourable competitor and a man of judgment, I might also point out that having been in the investment business for some 20 years myself, I know Doug Lawson and Doug Robson. The reason I know Doug Lawson is that the firm of Lawson Murray is known in the investment business to be the best in the business for the placing of financial advertisements. Through an accident of marriage, Doug Lawson is the brother-in-law of the Minister of Finance.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Accident?


Barbara Jean McDougall: It is an accident, Mr. Speaker, one of those unhappy accidents. I suggest to you that if we are to hurt ourselves through an accident of marriage, in terms of our careers or professions, perhaps the NDP is against marriage. Maybe that is what they are telling us.


An Hon. Member:: They are against love.


Barbara Jean McDougall: I don't think they are against love.
Let me turn to the other people who sit across the House from us. My great-grandfather was a Cabinet Minister in the Province of Ontario. He was, unfortunately, a Grit. This simply proves that each generation gets better. I would like to point out that he was a Liberal Cabinet Minister at a time when the Liberal Party in the country was a Party of honour contributing to the future of the nation. My Grit great-grandfather would be ashamed of the baby Grits who populate this House. He was also a man of integrity and honour. I know they are babies because of the shrill rattles that come from the other side.
During the Coalgate debate, the Hon. Allen MacEachen gave the most creative interpretation of the conflict of interest guidelines yet seen. On February 21, 1983 he said:
These guidelines are self-enforcing. There is no monitoring agency. They are up to the conscience of the individual... It is unfortunate that so much misunderstanding has existed about the effect of these guidelines.
You either know how to spell "integrity" or you do not. I agree with that. I can tell you who does know how to spell it, and that is the Minister of Finance.
Having spent a fair amount of time in the other place I feel I have some knowledge of those people. There is a person in the other place who had something to do with fisheries in this country. He designed the fisheries policy, and after he was appointed to the other place he was appointed director of the government fish organization. Mr. Speaker, if I were a fish 1 would be insulted. Someone on our side of the House forced him to resign because of a total conflict of interest. That company was in a position to get millions of dollars worth of contracts from the Government.
In that connection there is another example. Mr. David Mann was hired as the lawyer for the amalgamation of the Atlantic fisheries companies following that same task force. 1 quote the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) from April 3, 1984. He said:
He is doing all the legal work on the amalgamation and negotiation with shareholders for Fishery Products International Limited, the Newfoundland company in which the Government is a heavy shareholder. He has now been appointed to the Board of Directors of National Sea Products Limited, their prime competitor. The gentleman is also the campaign manager for Mr. John Turner in the Atlantic Provinces. I do not know how he does all this.
We are talking about a very serious matter here today, Mr. Speaker. The challenge to the integrity and judgment of my colleague and our Party is totally without foundation. If we are going to talk about conflicts of interest, maybe we should all stand up and confess our conflicts of interest. Mr. Speaker, my brother-in-law was appointed to be the head of CBC Radio News. I have, therefore, resolved never again to listen to the CBC.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: My sister, who by coincidence is married to my brother-in-law, is an editor at Macleans. I have cancelled my subscription.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: My other sister, the one who is not married to the head of CBC Radio News, works for the Canadian Bankers' Association, and so does my sister-in-law. I have, therefore, closed my account and am keeping my overdraft in a sock.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to question the Minister on the most relevant point she made in that entire speech. Where I grew up in Newfoundland we never had bicycle sheds. We had a few wood-sheds. I was happy to hear of the success of the members of her family and how well they have done in their various jobs. In Newfoundland we always say, "Never trust a man who wears a vest or a fellow who won't have a smoke behind the bicycle shed". What has the bicycle shed got to do with the motion introduced by the NDP today?
We enjoyed her speech and liked her style. She has great pizzazz and good humour. We enjoyed all that, but how is that relevant to this motion before us today?


Barbara Jean McDougall: It is very relevant, Mr. Speaker, and I am really sorry that the Hon. Member does not know how to ride a bicycle. It is important that people's patterns of judgment and integrity follow them through their lives. If they have integrity and judgment when they are young, they normally continue to have them as they proceed through life. I can attest to that, as can other people in this Chamber.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, on February 3, 1984 the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre) was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen as saying, "A Progressive Conservative Government would gradually replace everyone of the 3,300 Liberal Cabinet


April 26, 1985

appointees on federal boards, commissions, and Crown corporations with our people". That was her Minister speaking, the Minister who is now in charge of the Department that is the most susceptible to patronage. Does that square with the notion that all is well here and we should not ask questions because the Minister of Finance would not have a smoke behind the bicycle shed? Who are you trying to kid?


Barbara Jean McDougall: I hope the Hon. Member is not suggesting that anyone who voted for the Conservative Party is not a person of integrity and of service to the community. Every single appointment that we have made is of people with a history of community service, competence, and integrity. We have appointed women and people from a variety of cultural groups. What does the Hon. Member want? Most of the people in the country voted for us.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in the Hon. Member's opening remarks she confirmed what I had said. None of the names she mentioned was that of a Party official. I am not complaining about the Party officials that the Conservatives have appointed to various posts. I am just remarking.
As the Hon. Minister and all of the rest of us know, the Minister of Finance spoke with his brother-in-law, Mr. Lawson, about this matter. As I understand it, he gave approval. 1 would like to remind the Minister that while my colleagues and I have repeatedly said how capable, honest and good a man the Minister of Finance is, we have yet to use the word "judgment", because we question his judgment in that matter. That may say something for the judgment of the brother-in-law, who at least checked it out, but it does not say much for the judgment of the Minister of Finance, or, for that matter, of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre).
Will the Minister tell us whether, in her personal view, she thinks it is appropriate for the brother-in-law of a Cabinet Minister to receive an untendered contract? That is all we want to know.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the judgment of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre) is what determines who gets contracts. I have absolutely no problem with supporting my colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, in the awarding of this contract.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I take it from her answer that the Minister agrees it is acceptable for brother-in-laws to do untendered business with the Government. What is the Minister's opinion with respect to brothers and sisters? Could they accept appointments or do untendered business for the Gover-ment? Is the answer yes or no?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is a Liberal Member who has a brother-in-law in the Department of my hon. colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier).
How far does the Hon. Member want to go? Is he talking about second cousins, fourth cousins or uncles and aunts? Is he
Supply
suggesting that a competent person who is the sister or brother of the government Member should be excluded from any participation in the public policy process? If that is the case, he would eliminate many people. I and many of my colleagues have a large extended family.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about Members but about Cabinet Ministers and their brothers and sisters. We will restrict it to the question of brothers and sisters of Cabinet Ministers doing business with the Government of Canada. Does the Minister agree that they should be allowed to do so? Is the answer yes or no?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, that is a hypothetical question. Everyone has brothers and sisters. Surely there is nothing wrong with that.


Mr. Edwards:: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Minister not agree that many of the problems of the NDP in Saskatchewan were solved by their Liberal brethren who had a marvelous record for making them bureaucrats in the federal service.
There appears to be a wonderful NDP reputation for social engineering. I wonder about the NDP commitment to the family when this resolution would have the effect of outlawing in-laws.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the NDP commitment to the family.
Other allegations have been made in relation to this, one by the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston). He indicated that when he was a Minister there were secret government documents all over the office and anyone walking through the office could look at them. I do not think that is at all an appropriate way for a Cabinet Minister to conduct his business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier), for questions or comments.


Mr. Lanthier:: Yes, I am rising as the Member for LaSalle. I would like to ask the Minister what I am supposed to do. I am the fourteenth of a family of fifteen. I have 39 nephews and nieces and 27 grand-nephews and grand-nieces.


Jacques Guilbault: There are 25 millions Canadians!


Claude Lanthier: Seriously, there are quite a few Quebecers who are struck with the same situation. Am I supposed to commit suicide or go home?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, there are many of us on this side of the House as well as on the other side who have extended families. I know that this includes my hon. colleague.
I think that it is important that we get back to the fact that this Party has committed itself to acting with integrity and

April 26, 1985
Supply
judgment, to revising some of these guidelines and always giving them the appropriate review.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it has been very interesting to listen to the speeches and comments this morning and this afternoon from Members opposite. They have talked about everything but the issue and the motion which is on the Order Paper. I know that there are people in the gallery who are wondering what this debate is all about. The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the granting of an untendered contract to the brother-in-law of the present Minister of Finance by the Government of Canada is an unacceptable action.
That is what we are discussing. This motion is not an attack on the family unit. It does not demand that every brother, sister, mother, father or cousin of every Member of Parliament or Minister of the Crown should be locked away in Siberia until they have finished their political life.
The motion clearly states that the brother-in-law of a Minister should not be doing untendered business with that Minister's Department. It is not even with another Department or an agency, but with the Minister's Department. That is what happened in this case.
My colleagues in the NDP and we in the Liberal Party have attempted all week to have the Government answer that question. We have asked if the Government believes it is an acceptable practice, but we have never been able to get a straight answer. We have talked about the Government of Saskatchewan, the Government of Quebec and Governments ad infinitum back through history. But we have not talked about this particular instance, at least that side of the House has not.
I have come to the conclusion that if we cannot get a straight answer, then it is really a reflection of the attitude of Members opposite. Who have been the prime defenders opposite? One is the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who has risen in the House all week. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) has risen in the House a great deal this week. Certainly, it has been the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre). He has had a great deal to say. We heard from the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) for the first time today. She talked about bicycles and bicycle sheds and I do not know how that is relevant.
Let us talk about the people who have been the prime defenders. Let me quote a Member of Parliament who spoke in the House on June 21, 1963. He is a very well known Member of Parliament who was talking about patronage and untendered contracts. The Deputy Prime Minister is smiling across the way. What did he say? At page 1434 of Hansard on June 21, 1963, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
I would say that it is corrupt, because all that it indicates is a pay-off to political friends for assisting a political party. Patronage is being employed once again in the Yukon territory in order to pay off political friends. I say to the government benches, let us get back to the fair practice of calling for tenders for all public works and services and completely eliminate this ugly practice of
patronage. There is no reason for it, and in my view every Canadian has an equal right to bid for every public work or service that the government required.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Who said that?


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Deputy Prime Minister.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You're kidding!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am not kidding. I am serious.
We know what his attitude is-or was. I regret the loss of innocence between 1963 and 1985. It is amazing what 22 years in this place has done to the high principles, the values and views espoused by the Member opposite.
We see here the loss of innocence. In 1961, in a Maclean's magazine article entitled "The Young Canadians", a young promising star on the Canadian political star, the Prime Minister, who was a student at the time, was interviewed as a promising new star in Canada's future. In that 1961 article he was asked what he thought the attitude of a Prime Minister from the new generation of Canadians would be toward patronage. He said:
I think his attitude is going to be drastically changed from the attitude of those who are in government today.
Of course, Mr. Diefenbaker was in Government in 1961. The Prime Minister was forecasting a change.
In the Saturday Night magazine in 1976, the same promising young student, the Prime Minister, was now a candidate for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. What was he saying? How had he matured and grown from his association with the PC Party? The magazine states:
Fifteen years later, in his first leadership campaign, he became fond of quoting Senator Allister Grosart, the former Diefenbaker aide: 'What this party wants is its two feet right in the goddamn trough.'
Here we are in 1985 and they have their two feet right in the-I will not use that foul language-trough.
What did the Conservatives say in 1984, just months before they became the Government? The Minister of Supply and Services stood up in the House and told us that his Government would have a clean act. What did he say? Let us quote him, shall we? He said: "A Progressive Conservative Government would gradually-" The Member was in opposition when he said this. The quote continues: "-replace every one of the 3,300 Liberal Cabinet appointees on federal boards, commissions, and Crown corporations with our people."
What did the Prime Minister say when he was told that the Member for Calgary Centre had made that comment? Was he shocked? Did he deny any association with the man who is now the Minister of Supply and Services? I will tell you what he said, Mr. Speaker. He said: "Wait just a moment. Andre can't count. There is not 3,300 Liberal appointees to be replaced with Tories. There are 3,600 Liberals to be replaced with Tories". That is what the Prime Minister of the day said. He also said at a press conference on July 9, 1984: "Brothers
April 26, 1985

and brothers-in-law are appointed to positions all over the place". It is a real scandal.
Why are these people opposite not able to acknowledge within the framework of their life experience, of their attitude, of the values they hold with respect to patronage, that there has been a conflict of interest, at the very least an appearance of a conflict of interest and, therefore, an example of the judgment of the current Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson)? They are not able to acknowledge it, Mr. Speaker. The direction from which they come at this matter, the mind-set of this Party in power, reflects the attitude of a bunch of children who for too long have been denied access to the cookie jar. That is the reason they cannot understand that a very serious breach of the conflict of interest guidelines has occurred. That is the reason they cannot understand that it is not appropriate for the brother-in-law of the Minister of Finance to receive a contract from the Department of Finance. That is the reason, despite repeated questions, not one single Member opposite has been able to stand in his place with a straight face and answer the questions: Do you agree? Is it appropriate? Not one, Mr. Speaker.
Here is another quote, Mr. Speaker:
For of those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment on each of us, recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state, our success or failure, in whatever office we hold, will be measured by the answers to four questions:
First, were we truly men of courage . . .
Second, were we truly men of judgment . . .
Third, were we truly men of integrity . . .
Finally, were we truly men of dedication?
Those are the words of John F. Kennedy.
The issue in this debate today and the issue during the week has not been whether the Minister of Finance would have a smoke behind the bicycle shed when he was growing up. That is not the issue. The issue is not even whether the Minister of Finance is a man of integrity or honesty, whether he has exemplified throughout his life in his dealings, private and public, standards with which we would all like to associate ourselves. That is not the issue. The issue is that the Minister has shown extremely bad judgment. We on this side of the House with respect to patronage now see that the skids are greased by this Party and we want to put the brakes on. The issue that has caused Members in both Parties on this side to pursue this issue all through the week, perhaps into next week-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You will be down to 14 per cent in the polls if you do not talk about the real issues.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -is not simply the conflict of interest guidelines. What has bothered Members on this side is that we have not once, despite five days of questions, despite the speeches today, had an acknowledgment, even an acknowledgment, from Members opposite that there is something wrong.
We have heard the Minister of Supply and Services-whom I quoted earlier when he was not a Minister but now is a
Supply
Minister in charge of the most sensitive patronage Department, and if there is the possibility for abuse, it is there-rise and say: "I would do it again". That is the problem. The problem is not just with the Minister of Finance. The problem is that we have given the Prime Minister, the front bench of this Government and the Minister of Finance himself an opportunity to get up and say, "No, it is not acceptable for a brother-in-law of a Minister in charge of a Department to receive a contract from that Department".


Paul Wyatt Dick: That is wrong.


Brian Vincent Tobin: We have not even heard in the words of the Prime Minister a little bit of "I am sorry". We have not even heard in the words of the Prime Minister a little bit of "It won't happen again". We have had a Minister of Supply and Services stand and tell us repeatedly over and over during this week: "I would do it again". Who are you trying to fool with this notion? That this company saved us $500,000? That is absolute nonsense, Mr. Speaker. The Government House Leader should know that the public servant who signed his name on a contract that was given to Lawson Murray to authorize that contract, who is not now employed with the Government and who was interviewed by a reporter this week from The Globe and Mail, was quoted as saying: "I don't care what the Minister of Finance says. It was straight patronage". That is the person who signed the contract.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That was your employee.


Brian Vincent Tobin: No. That is the one who signed the contract. You ought to get your facts, straight, Sir. I warn the Government House Leader that we expect him to come forward quickly with their new conflict of interest guidelines. I will be curious to see how they can possibly make them any stronger than the current guidelines, which state categorically


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I hear a Member shouting. No, they are Mr. Clark's guidelines. There again we all know that the Prime Minister thinks of Mr. Clark. He stood up in Montreal a few years ago and endorsed the leadership of Mr. Clark. He stood up in Montreal and said: "The Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) will remain the Leader of the P.C. Party at the convention and he will do it with my support". That is what the current Prime Minister said. What happened, Mr. Speaker? A little while later the man looked like a porcupine. Of course, the current Prime Minister had no blood on his hands. We know what his word is worth. The Hon. Member for Yellowhead, the former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister, knows what his word is worth. We know what happens when the Prime Minister lowers his voice because we saw him do it on that fateful day in Montreal. He said: "I can assure you that I support the candidacy of the Member for Yellowhead". A little while later he was being hauled out on a bier, rushed into an ambulance and plugged into about four gallons of blood. We know what his word is worth. We are telling you now that the eyes of the people of Canada are upon you. You

April 26, 1985
Supply
have tried their patience already much too far and you had better come with some guidelines pretty soon. We shall be vigilant.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise because I want to make some brief comments at this point in time with respect to the topics before us today.
It always amuses me to see the moral outrage demonstrated from time to time by the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party-


Ian Deans: No moral outrage.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -who come forward with a vote on Friday afternoon, costing the people of Canada $450,000 to have this discussion and this vote, which requires Members to come here from their constituencies on a Friday afternoon. Where are they, Mr. Speaker?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Where are they paid to be?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: All we see is a corporal's guard on the part of the Opposition. They know they are on a phoney issue. They know that they should be talking about the real issues affecting the people of Canada. They should be talking about the fishermen, the farmers, and the working man. But what are they doing at this time? They indulge themselves in the worst slanderous, sleazy type of character assassination that we have seen in this Parliament for a long time. If this type of thing is carried on by the New Democratic Party and by the Liberal Party, the eyes of Canada will be on this Parliament.
Do you know what is going to happen, Mr. Speaker? These people will slide right out of sight in terms of political support. The people of Canada do not want their time wasted with this kind of discussion which somehow appeals to the base instincts of the people in the Opposition.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You rang the bells for three weeks.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They want constructive discussion on the real issues, the pocket-book issues, on how we can improve our society. People do not want to be listening to all sorts of allegations and a repetition of misstatements of facts.
A statement was made today in the House by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and by a Member from Ottawa as well, suggesting that somehow we had made 1,200 patronage appointments.


Ian Deans: I didn't say that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It was not you; it was the Leader of your Party.


Ian Deans: He was not here today.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Leader of that Party suggested that we had made 1,200 patronage appointments. What are the facts? The fact is that we have made a total of something in excess of
500 Order in Council appointments. We are guilty of making those appointments.


Ian Deans: That is in seven months.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We made a number of appointments, included in that, which may have had the effect of promoting RCMP staff sergeants to inspectors. These were some of the Order in Council appointments included in that 500. We appointed C. M. Bud Drury. In fact, we appointed a number of judges included in that number, appointments which were approved by the Canadian Bar Association.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You fired Drury.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Are these patronage appointments? In terms of discretionary appointments since we were elected to office, we have made something in the vicinity of 350 of them. Listening to the Opposition, one would think that we spend noon, morning and night doing nothing but filling appointments and jobs. That is the opposite to the truth. That is being fraudulent. They are being unfair. They are attempting to raise false issues.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am just curious to know whether the Hon. Government House Leader is making a comment with regard to the speech or is making a speech. If he is making a speech, perhaps he could try to make it relevant to the motion before the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) wish to answer?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I was getting to the point, but I think I am entitled to make a brief comment with respect to this matter.


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In terms of the statements made-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, this is the time for questions and comments. If the Government House Leader would like to make a speech, he should wait for his turn. I would like to have an opportunity to comment on the comments which are being raised. There is no such thing as a 10-minute question or comment, of which I know. Perhaps the Speaker could enlighten me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member will have an opportunity to answer. The President of the Privy Council has the floor. I ask him to make his comments relevant to the speech of the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member was sitting silent, mute, as I recall it, on the government side before the last election when the Liberal Government was wallowing in terms of patronage. In terms of the special recovery fund, it was a crass and absolute distribution of public funds to the constituencies of government Members. Where was the Hon. Member then? Where was his outrage at

April 26, 1985

that time? His Government gave a name to patronage which is now history. Where was he? Why was he not speaking up? Why would he not speak up when his Government was indulging in the worst patronage in the history of our country?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, without commenting on the validity of the Hon. Member's statement, it sounded an awful lot like a statement saying that two wrongs make a right.


Harvie Andre: You admit a wrong.


Brian Vincent Tobin: No, no.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Listen carefully.


Mr. Darling:: You admit a wrong.


Ian Deans: They were wrong and so were you.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Without commenting on the validity of the Hon. Member's comments, it sounds like a defence to me from somebody who is trying to say "leave us alone; because we think it happened before, it is okay for us to do it". The Government House Leader, an important representative and an important spokesman, did not rise to tell us why there was no wrongdoing.


Harvie Andre: There was no wrongdoing.


Brian Vincent Tobin: He rose and went on a vicious attack. The Prime Minister was questioned, as reported in the May 24, 1983 edition of The Globe and Mail, as follows:
"Mr. Mulroney, you're going to be Prime Minister", and Mr. Mulroney shouts back, "You're going to be a Senator. But it will all be fair. There will also be jobs for Liberals and New Democrats-after I've been Prime Minister for 15 years and I can't find a living breathing Tory in the country".
The Government House Leader, who was outraged a moment ago-and the cameras cannot see him-is grinning from ear to ear.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are a joke.


Brian Vincent Tobin: He knows that there have been 1,200 patronage appointments made by the Government, not 500. He knows that not all patronage appointments are Order in Council appointments. He knows that. He is not fooling anybody. I invite him now to answer one question. I will not raise the subject ever again, no matter what is his answer, but I ask him to give me a yes or no. Does he think it is appropriate for the brother-in-law of a Cabinet Minister to receive an untendered contract from that Cabinet Minister's Department? Is that appropriate? Yes or no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Government House Leader.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the premise is wrong.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes or no.
Supply


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The allegation in terms of the contract in question is completely wrong.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes or no.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is wrong because he did not get it from the Minister's Department. It was from the Department of Supply and Services.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes or no.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: How can I answer yes or no to a question which is wrong in its very premise? I stand up with my colleagues and say that there has been no breach of any guidelines. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is an honourable and decent man. No amount of attempted character assassination on the part of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party will cause one change in the attitude we take with respect to doing the right thing on behalf of the people of Canada.
I say to the Hon. Member that he does himself a disservice. He brings his own credibility into serious question by this kind of muck-raking and this kind of attack on a decent and outstanding Canadian citizen.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, in order to clarify the record-and I do not know if the camera can see it-this document is entitled: The Black Paper on Tory Patronage. It was prepared by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), and it lists considerably more than 500 Tory patronage appointments. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has done a super job watching the kinds of tricks those people have played. I would be glad, on his behalf, to provide a copy of it to any Member who requests it. In case they did not know, they can take credit for a lot more then 500, because there are about 1,200 listed in the document prepared so ably by the Hon. Member.


Mr. Johnson:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) if he believes that every Member making a statement in debate or answering questions should tell the truth to Hon. Members of the House.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think all of us should endeavour, wherever possible, in whatever way possible, in so far as we have the information, to tell the truth to Hon. Members of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Resuming debate.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, having returned to the House this afternoon to join in the debate on the question before us as to whether in fact it is acceptable for the Government of Canada to grant an untendered contract to the brother-in-law of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), I have been taken by the comments of the Government House Leader who suggested that this question was not of any great concern to the people of Canada. I very much doubt that. I am always aware of the fact that my

April 26, 1985
Supply
constituents-and I expect that the same is true in many other ridings-are watching debates in the House and have a considerable interest in questions which come before us. Sometimes the debates may leave something to be desired, but Canadians have an interest in the questions before us.
Given the confusion that has been reigning in the last few minutes, it may be worth repeating some of the details or some of the information involved in this case in order to sharpen the question. Those who tuned in late and are involved in listening to this stage of the debate, not having read their newspapers faithfully and so on, may wonder whether or not some of the darts being tossed are on target.
The question involves the granting of a contract for advertising savings bonds. It involves the granting of a contract which someone who was involved in this kind of work during the term of the last Government says is very easy. In fact, this kind of work was described as a beautiful hand-out, patronage. It is also clear in looking at the way in which this contract was arrived at that the last Government followed practices very much like this one. Some of the darts being tossed back and forth involve Liberals and Conservatives in the old slanging matches.
The people of Canada are wondering exactly what is going on. In this information about how it was done, is it possible that the Minister of Finance did act with propriety and that there is nothing wrong with the Government? What are the means by which this hand-out to an advertising agency is carried out? It is apparently in the hands of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) rather than the Minister of Finance. A recommendation is made by a committee of the Government. When we examine the personnel of that committee, we get a better sense of how these things are done. We are told that soon after taking office, this Government fired the three Liberals who had been in charge of the federal advertising management group. It put in two Tory activists. When we see that, it becomes clear that this is the basis for this kind of activity. When we are told that one of the people appointed was Robert Byron, a former advertising executive with Case Associates Ltd. of Toronto, who directed constituency services for the Conservative Party in the federal election campaign last year, we may well assume the Mr. Byron had some fair knowledge of who the Tory investors are across this country, particularly those in cities like Toronto, who have significant business positions and who now deserve to benefit from the new Government.
When we are told that the other person, Jean Peloquin, a Montreal advertising executive who was a member of the Tory communications strategy group in Quebec during the last campaign, we say to ourselves that here is someone who would know perfectly well who the advertisers are in that part of the country and probably had some fair awareness of who they are in other areas.
What we have is work that is not very difficult, probably overpaid, given that it is this kind of a plum or hand-out to an
agency. The people who are looking at it are former Conservative Party officials who were appointed to this group to manage it for the benefit of their friends. When they look the field over and settle on an agency, which happens to have the brother-in-law of the Minister of Finance in it, it presumably does not bother them that this gentleman is in an executive position, that the advertising contract involves the Ministry of Finance. That does not matter. Something over a quarter of a million dollars is going to go to this agency. The fact that it means extra revenue for the firm is just the way these things work.
The people of Canada are interested in these matters, particularly ordinary Canadians who have very little hope of ever benefiting from a Government which likes to cut expenditures wherever possible and to restrain spending, no matter what the consequences may be for them. Those ordinary Canadians have a considerable interest in exactly how this new Government operates. They are not going to be impressed when they realize that this Government, which promised change in various areas, carried on through the fall using guidelines which are clearly inadequate, which the previous Government had used, produced no change except a personnel change.
These Canadians are going to ask themselves whether taxpayers' money is being squandered, is going to the profit of relatives and friends of the new Government at their expense without gaining the country any great advantage. To be told that this is past practice and the President of the Treasury Board need not apologize to anyone for having done these things is outrageous. The people of Canada can only be strengthened in their cynicism that they feel about Government, that the Tories are no better than the Liberals, that the Government is out for the advantage it can get for its friends and relatives, not the people of Canada generally. They can only be convinced that good Government is going to be impossible.
Government falls into disrepute by behaviour of this sort. If there is one thing that I hold against Governments and Parties that do this sort of thing, it is exactly that sense of disreputable Government, the cynicism about Government that it engenders in the minds of ordinary Canadians. When I see Hon. Members shaking their heads and questioning that, I wonder where their moral sense is. Clearly partisanship takes over and people cease to worry about proper behaviour and propriety in these circumstances.
Our motion focuses on the granting of a contract. In the debate this afternoon there has been a failure to answer the question about whether this is acceptable or not acceptable. It is an indication of a certain measure of unease. The curious thing is that there has been some tightening up in the guidelines. That surely suggests that the behaviour last fall was not acceptable, that this sort of thing should not happen. If the head is shaking, it means that the regulations have not been tightened up. One then has only to grieve the fact that there has been no improvement.
April 26, 1985

There has been some discussion here about patronage in the sense of other appointments. If one looks at those, one gets a sense of why Canadians have reason to be unhappy about what happened last fall and reason to support the motion before us today. If the question is answered as it should be, it will give the Government reason to apologize to the Canadian people.
Government can all too easily become the private property of those who hold the levers of power, those who have the seal of state and those who have the power of appointment. In our parliamentary monarchy, that power resides largely in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister acting with the advice of his own office. When we contemplate what occurs in the patronage appointments, whatever number they may be, in these Order in Council appointments, and judgeships have been suggested, and the fact that the federal Cabinet, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, has incredible power in the appointment of justices across the country and within what would seem to any newcomer to be provincial judicial systems, we see that it is only an indication of the large power of appointment which the Government has had from the time of Confederation. It has been used time after time for partisan advantage. It has been used time after time for just the sort of gain for the friends and relatives of Government which we are protesting this afternoon.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is shameful. Name names.


Abram Ernest Epp: The Government uses its power of appointment in order to appoint supporters and friends, even without people having any great amount of qualification.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That's McCarthyism. Name names. What judges do you suggest are political hacks?


Abram Ernest Epp: The fact that we have this power of appointment without any parliamentary check on it gets us to the heart of the difficulty.


Harvie Andre: Your performance does not give us much confidence in Parliament.


Abram Ernest Epp: If we were going to have Government acting properly, we would have the credentials of persons being appointed considered by a committee. That committee would determine whether in fact these persons deserve to exercise the powers that are there.
One need only think of the boards of transportation organizations which have received a good deal of government attention in the last while, most recently the boards of Air Canada, CN, VIA Rail. We have seen persons appointed to those boards whose credentials certainly include friendship with the Prime Minister, support for him in years past and limited knowledge in some cases. One knows quite definitely of the industry that they are going to be responsible for, the company on whose board they sit. In those cases, we have every reason to ask if a parliamentary committee which would consider the credentials of these persons would in fact decide that they
Supply
deserved the appointments, or would it not in fact refuse to vote for the endorsement of some of those appointments? If we had such a structure, there would be no necessity for anyone to shout at me that I name names or anything of the sort. We would have a parliamentary committee encouraging the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to consider candidates properly and to appoint people with qualifications. When we consider the companies involved, which are large Crown Corporations and commissions of various sorts, and when we know that the responsibilities here are of enormous importance to the nation and to Canadians, we want people with expertise. If it is not necessary to have expertise, then we create sinecures.
In centuries past, the British parliamentary Government offered a great many sinecures. After all, Adam Smith himself spent much of his time writing Wealth of Nations while holding one of those sinecures. A lesser mortal was appointed to do the work and the greater mortal in effect went on a pension. I must say that most of these sinecures were a lot less productive than the one held by Adam Smith.
If boards do not have important work to do and if knowledge of one aspect or another of an industry is not required in order to become a member of the board, then we have, in the most abominable way, another system of pension. Ordinary Canadians are very interested in these matters because they know how very limited their incomes are if they depend on Government. They have suffered at the hands of a past Government which twice brought forward restraint programs designed to reduce incomes, and this happened with the support of Conservative Members.
The people know if they live on pensions how adequate or otherwise those pensions are. If they are forced to live on unemployment insurance benefits or social assistance, again they know exactly how prosperous they will be and they know of the indequacies in the Canada Assistance Plan, a plan which, in co-operation with the provinces, forces people to live at income levels which are open invitations to immorality and crime. In such circumstances, Canadians have a considerable interest in exactly how fat the friends and relatives of Government will become at the public expense.
It is that kind of standard that the Government House Leader might want to contemplate. He can grow very indignant, as he did a few moments ago when he put on a reasonably effective show, but his constituents too would like to know why some people manage to do so well under what can easily become Conservative privilege while ordinary Canadians, who would like to be able to make some contribution to the well-being of their communities, are held back, constrained and driven to desperation by the actions of the Government. In the Province of Ontario, one can cite the provincial Conservative Government's 42 years of damnable governing as much as one can now cite the new Government with its great power.
The larger patronage question and the more specific matter of the abuse of power to enrich some at the expense of the Canadian nation are the kinds of issues that are before us. I

April 26, 1985
Supply
think the Canadian people are very interested in these issues. The Canadian people seek a Government that will act responsibly. The Canadian people want the appointments of men and women who have qualifications, who represent the diversity of this country and who have regional experience through the varoius levels of prosperity and lack of prosperity that exist in this country.
The Canadian people want boards to be broadly representative in every way. They do not want boards that are made up simply of friends and relatives of the Government. They do not want boards made up of Conservatives who have been particularly friendly with the Prime Minister in past years. In fact, there are probably many Conservatives who are still waiting for rewards. The Prime Minister has not had 15 years in which to satisfy every Conservative, and he has neglected supporters of other people while taking care of his own friends.
The Canadian people want boards to be properly representative, and when they hear about the Government spending money on advertising contracts, they want to be sure that they are getting good value for their money. The refusal of Members and Ministers opposite to say whether or not this behaviour is acceptable underscores the fact that they too do not want to go on record as saying that it was acceptable. By their refusal to answer, there is a concession that something happened here that should not have happened and that the regulations need to be made tighter.
1 call for all of these contracts to be tendered. Surely such a provision can be made. We need a parliamentary committee which can consider appointments and ensure that the people who exercise power on behalf of the Canadian Government and the Canadian people are properly qualified to do so.
Some 10 years ago, President Nixon was involved in trying to change the nature of the Supreme Court of the United States so that it would suit his particular ideological predilections. Many Hon. Members will also remember the number of unfortunate nominations to the Supreme Court he put forward, nominations which Senate committees refused to pass. I will never forget one judge at a lower level who, when attacked for being too mediocre, asserted that the Supreme Court of the United States of America should offer among other things a place for mediocrity to be represented. In this case, what we have is mediocrity that is bearing the Conservative label, or mediocrity that carries PC membership cards in its wallet. That is not a situation which pleases the Canadian people. They applaud us this afternoon for being here where we ought to be doing the nation's business and asserting the principles that should govern.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member. I do not think we have heard such a skilful weaving of sanctimony and hypocrisy in one speech in a long time.
The Member made a lot of suggestions as to how things should be done. I would like to examine those suggestions for a moment. He suggests that he holds the action of appointing one's friends and acquaintances in contempt. He wanted the power of review of appointments to large Crown corporations and boards given to a committee. He did not want these
appointees made up of friends of the Government. He made the comment that he did not think these appointees should have the membership cards of the Party in power in their pockets.
When Saul Cherniak, the Manitoba NDP M.L.A., was appointed Chairman of Manitoba Hydro, did he have an NDP membership card in his pocket? Was his appointment reviewed by the parliamentary committee which the Hon. Member so loftily suggests should be put in place? Having dealt with Saul Cherniak, could he enlighten us on Mark Eliesen, the former staff member of the NDP National Party who was appointed the research director to the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro? Did his appointment also go through that very lofty and sanctimonious review procedure? Did he or did he not have an NDP Party membership card in his pocket when he was appointed?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, these are questions of fact to which I cannot answer yes or no. It is quite likely that Mr. Cherniak had a membership card somewhere about and close enough to him that I would be inclined to say yes to that question. As far as Mr. Eliesen's appointment is concerned, I really do not know.
I will cheerfully deal with the point of the question, though, and that is whether or not in fact there should be such procedures. I think there should be. As to whether or not the provincial New Democratic Government of Manitoba should do this or not, in my opinion the answer is clearly yes. That the failure of one provincial Government to provide such a committee in any way excuses the Government of Canada from providing one does not seem to me to be an argument that is at all convincing. I would like this Government to lead. It happens to be the one which I am in, so I will do my part and suggest the directions which I think we should take. After all, these proposals are not entirely novel. Certainly, it is not solely my suggestion that we should have such a committee. Indeed, it was part of my campaign in Thunder Bay-Nipigon to propose such a committee. I believe the Prime Minister has also expressed opinions on this matter which would be well worth examining. I look forward to consideration being given to establishing such a committee and going through with it at an early date. That is what the question is.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment and then I would like to put a question to the Hon. Member.
As I indicated earlier today, there has been some attempt to suggest that thousands of appointments have been made by Order in Council by this Government during the period in which it has been in power. I believe the record should be set straight. On March 27, the Leader of the New Democratic Party stated that over a thousand such appointments had been made, and today the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) said that the Government had appointed over 1,200 people. The fact of the matter is that since September 4, 1984,
April 26, 1985

the Government has made 593 appointments by virtue of Order in Council. That information is on public record. Members must understand that those 593 appointments include a number of categories. They include Commissioners for Oaths, honorary consuls for Canada abroad, diplomatic appointments, commissions of inquiry, and the list goes on. I would be surprised if former Staff Sergeant Hendrik Kornelius Morlag and Sergeant Carl Singbeil of the RCMP, who were appointed to the rank of inspector, would consider themselves as being recipients of patronage appointments. I would be surprised if Keith W. MacLellan, who was appointed as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Canada to the Syrian-Arab Republic, could be considered by any decent and fairthinking Canadian as having received a patronage appointment. Is the appointment of people such as Bud Drury to CN a patronage appointment?
I have lived in Saskatchewan all my life. I have also lived under a New Democratic Government in that province. So I do not have to be lectured by members of that Party with respect to paying off their friends. I understand that once in a while outstanding and decent people were appointed to positions by the New Democratic Government of Saskatchewan. They appointed my mother to the Human Rights Commission.
I paid tribute to them for that. That was an exception. I can tell Members that my mother was not in there with a bunch of Tories. However, the people who were appointed to boards and commissions, certainly were not unfriendly to that Government.
1 believe that the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon is an honourable Member who has a very deep interest in fairness. The motion which was put forward by his Party today is tied to a vote. That has required Members of Parliament to return from their constituencies on a Friday afternoon. The cost to Parliament to run this House for one day is $450,000. Does the Member think that it is more important to talk about the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre), who awarded a contract at the outset of our administration to a company in which the brother-in-law of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was involved, than it is to consider the plight of the people of this country who are looking for jobs? Does he not think that it would be more important for the Opposition to come forward with a statement of how it thinks it can improve Canada? Does he think that this kind of debate is edifying to the people which he fought so hard to represent? Does he not think that we would be better served in this House of Commons if we debated the issues which affect the well-being of the people of Canada? I ask him those questions in all seriousness.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, given that the Government House Leader said very similar things in a more impassioned sense before I began speaking, I think that i have answered those questions.
I think this is a good use of time. It involves the question of granting untendered contracts to relatives and friends. That is a question which is important. Canadian people are interested in it.
Supply
His mention of a $450,000 expenditure strikes me as being contemptible. I do not know what goes into adding that up, but people know, to some extent, how few of us are in the House when we are debating important matters following Question Period. To be told that Members have come back from their ridings will not impress my constituents. What is the $450,000 for? Did the Government House Leader propose to shut down the House and not let us have an Opposition Day in order that we could forward something which was important to us? I trust not. I believe that that kind of contempt for Parliament and for the good sense of the Opposition is not something which the Government House Leader is actually trying to make. But I am not sure what the point of the $450,000 was.
I repeat, this is important business. It was appropriate to raise this matter because the Government refused to answer the question of whether it is acceptable to grant an untendered contract to a relative of the minister of a Department with which that contract is involved. It is a perfectly good question. The refusal of government Members to deal with that and instead to wax indignant about other matters, only confirms my belief that they know what the answer is and they do not dare give it.


Mr. Fraleigh:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment and put a question to the Hon. Member opposite. I would suggest that the people of Canada are watching and are interested in seeing this House debate productively. What NDP Members are doing today is very transparent, and they know it. They can sit and grin all they want, but the people of Canada are not so stupid that they cannot see through what the NDP is doing today.
They speak about this momentous motion which is before the House. However, there are no hordes of opposition Members in their seats. It is a vital matter and we do not have a full House. I suppose that I should not direct any of my remarks toward the Liberal benches, because no one is there to hear them. I can understand what the NDP thought it was doing, and so do the people of Canada. They can see through sheer sham, and that is what this debate is all about.
The suggestion was made that no government Member was willing to respond to the question with a yes or no answer. I want to take this opportunity to respond. It is yes-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the period for questions and comments has now expired. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) on debate.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Saturday and I will be in the good old City of Calgary for my regular monthly public meeting. The first thing which 1 will brag about is this contract. I will brag about the fact that we have a Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre) who instructed his officials to look around for a firm that for $26,000 would do the work which firms historically have done, and which would go one step further and provide advice to save Canadian taxpayers half a million dollars in the coming

April 26, 1985
Supply
year and in future years. I believe that 211 people from one political Party were chosen by the voters of this country to form the Government because the country is in a mess, and we are to go out there and select the most qualified people who will do the best job for the taxpayers of this country and turn this country around. That is what the Minister of Supply and Services did, and 1 am proud of it.
This is a day on which we can concentrate on the issue of integrity. The issue of integrity is one which is legitimate for debate in this Chamber. It is of concern to Canadians, certainly of concern to me and it is of concern to members of my Party. A day's debate on the issue of integrity is a day for very serious debate. My first introduction to the New Democratic Party's integrity was in the month of December, 1979. That Party, which said, "We stand for the ordinary people of Canada", stood in this Chamber and voted down a Budget which the Canadian Welfare Council said was the fairest Budget to the poor people of this nation in the decade of the 1970s. That was my first encounter with NDP integrity.
My second encounter was in the early days of the great Constitution debate. Most of the New Democratic Party Members who sat in this Chamber were from western Canada. That constitutional proposal would have made second, third and fourth-class citizens out of western Canadians for the rest of our lifetimes, but that Party supported it for political gains. That is the second major chunk of NDP integrity I have encountered in this Chamber.
Today is a day where we are supposed to debate the issue of integrity. Look at the motion, Mr. Speaker, which the Opposition has proposed. It states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the granting of an untendered contract to the brother-in-law of the present Minister of Finance by the Government of Canada is an unacceptable action.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It could have said, "The granting to anyone of any untendered contract".


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Is it a factually correct motion, Mr. Speaker? Let us take one fact which deals with one small piece of integrity. There is no such contract which exists between the Government of Canada and the brother-in-law of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). There is a contract which exists between the Government of Canada, under the authority of the Minister of Supply and Services, and a firm, namely, Lawson Murray Ltd. The very name suggests that Lawson is one person and Murray another, and who in this Chamber knows what "Limited" represents? But there was a contract between a firm and the Government of Canada.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: And it was untendered.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is an untendered contract. The New Democratic Party, when it voted in this Chamber in December, 1979, made victims of the poor people of this country. That is one of the consequences. Today the thrust of its interventions, the thrust of its motion, I suggest, runs counter to the basic
attitude which underlies support for the Charter of Rights and for a belief in the individual rights of Canadians. The last speaker of the New Democratic Party broadened the debate somewhat. The motion suggests that brothers-in-law and all of those who are associated with, in partnership, or in company with them, should be discriminated against simply because they went through a marriage ceremony. It says nothing about common-law spouses. It says nothing about first cousins, second cousins, half brothers or half sisters. But it says something about brothers-in-law.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: And a lot about untendered contracts.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The last speaker broadened it to the issue of friends, Mr. Speaker. If we were to buy the logic which underlies this NDP motion, we would have to start with a couple of facts. First of all, let us recognize that about 46 per cent, almost half of the Gross National Product which occurs in this country in a calendar year, occurs because of government expenditures. It is Government at all levels. Almost half the commerce in this country occurs because of government expenditures. That is the first point to recognize, Mr. Speaker. That Party is suggesting that particular classes of people, the friends of politicians and the brothers-in-law of politicians, should be excluded from a portion of that business.
I would like to ask members of the New Democratic Party a question. What would happen if, through some miracle of misinformation, the Canadian public ceased to understand the New Democratic Party and, in a moment of weakness, voted for it and put it in charge of this nation? I have in front of me just one page of Main Estimates. It is called "Figure 19: Distribution of Labour Education Funds by Organization". These are untendered contracts between the Government of Canada and labour organizations to provide educational services to their members. The first was the Canadian Labour Congress, $4,291,000; second, Confederation of National Trade Unions, $398,500; third, Canadian Federation of Labour, $398,500; fourth, Canadian Conference of Teamsters, $171,500; and fifth, Centrale de l'enseignement du Quebec, $161,500. These are single source suppliers of educational services. Members of this Party support them. They are in the Main Estimates. Members of this Party believe it is really important that those services be provided to the memberships of those unions. It is the opinion of members of this Party and of our Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight), that these are the proper bodies for the delivery of these services. But they are untendered services, Mr. Speaker. Is the New Democratic Party telling this House that if, through some miracle, it became the Government, because these unions had members who supported it in the election, they are going to turf out these contracts, they are not going to have contracts like this with these organizations? That is the logical extension of what those Hon. Members are trying to lay on this Chamber. They are saying that simply because people participate in the democratic process, they should become second-class Canadians. That is a classic example of their logic.
April 26, 1985

What are you going to do about the technological impact research fund? Because I will tell you, the people who receive eight of 13 grants awarded so far-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: That's what they are, grants.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -eight of the 13 untendered contracts are with unions or employee associations and, in many cases, those people may be related. I do not know who the brothers-in-law sisters-in-law, third cousins and second cousins are. I do know that many of the board members will have supported NDP candidates in the last election. And I ask the members of the New Democratic Party: do you really mean that their participation on behalf of your candidacy in a democracy should exclude them from participating in an area of human activity where they are particularly well suited, are particularly expert, and where we have good reason to believe they will produce the best product for the least cost for the Canadian taxpayers? That is what those groups are and we think they should be funded.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Those Hon. Members sit in some kind of vaporous land, Mr. Speaker, without having their feet on the ground. We have an untendered situation with all of the banking that we do on behalf of the federal Government with the credit unions and major banks. We have an untendered situation with every professional service, whether we are talking about accountants, lawyers, or consultants of one kind or another. How on earth could we have a tendered situation in the area of artists and entertainers?


Ian Deans: You're being ridiculous.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: We're being ridiculous? The NDP House Leader (Mr. Deans) says that we are being ridiculous. Mr. Speaker, as our House Leader has pointed out, we are spending the better part of $.5 million on this debate today. We are debating a situation in which the Government of Canada picked a provider of goods and services and paid him $26,000. All of the work was done. There are no complaints about it. And we got an extra service which will save the taxpayers $500,000 this year, next year and the year after that. They find that appalling, Mr. Speaker. They want us to spend $.5 million debating the terrible Government that chose the best supplier in the country which did the best job. Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong with their logic.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we are running out of time and there is so much more that I would like to say. I have sat in this Chamber for six years. One of the characteristics of legislation brought in by the previous Government, and nine times out of ten supported by the NDP, was the creation of boards, commissions, and mechanisms that would allow Order in Council appointments.
Supply


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the hon. gentleman said we should stick to the facts, would he admit that his Party supported about twice as many of the Liberal votes-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am sorry, that is not a point of order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, Members will remember that spate of appointments just prior to the election. I do not want to bring up the names of all the former Members of Parliament who were apointed to boards and commissions, but there were three appointments to ambassadorial posts, one of them new. There were five appointments to courts, one to the Parole Board, one to the Canadian Radio and Television Commission, one to the Canadian Transport Commission, one to St. Lawrence Seaway, one to the Livestock Feed Board, and one to the Aviation Safety Board. There were other appointments to de Havilland, to the Export Development Corporation, to the Canadian National Railway, to the Canadian Sealing Industry, and to the Farm Credit Corporation. That is just a partial list. I bring that up to remind the House that in the minority Government of 1972 to 1974 the thrust of the NDP public policy was toward the creation of boards and commissions which would operate at arm's length from the Parliament of Canada and would allow the Cabinet to make appointments and spend money without telling the Canadian people very much about them.
That is the thrust of public policy in the country. It grows out of an ideology which says that there are elites designed to rule. At the heart of this motion today is a threat system to Canadians. The threat is that if you happen to have a friend or business partner who happens to marry someone who happens to be related to someone who gets involved in politics, part of your business can go down the drain. Therefore, you had better not get involved as a volunteer, you had better not encourage your family to get involved as volunteers, and you had better not participate in democracy. Let the elite rule. That is the thrust of this.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being 5.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of Supply in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 62(9). The question is the following one. Mr. Deans, seconded by Ms. Jewett, moves:
That, in the opinion of this House, the granting of an untendered contrct to the brother-in-law of the present Minister of Finance by the Government of Canada is an unacceptable action.
It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour please say yea.

April 26, 1985
Supply


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
It being after five o'clock p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.12 p.m. the House adjourned.

Monday, April 29, 1985