1986-12-03

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, now that the gift-giving season is here I would like to draw the Government's attention to a situation that continues to distress and frustrate Canadians who are trying to maintain contact with family and friends in Eastern Bloc countries.
It is a sad fact that a person in Canada who sends a simple, inexpensive gift as a token of affection to an elderly parent, or to a dear friend in the U.S.S.R., must be prepared to have the package returned by the Soviet authorities, without any explanation of why it was not delivered.
This is not a new situation, and since there are obvious human rights implications I would urge the Government to use all possible means to remind Soviet authorities of their obligations under international human rights agreements, and to work for improvement in this particular situation.


DISASTERS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, this week 1,200 homes were hit by flooding in my constituency and along Lake Erie. This tragedy is a warning of worse flooding to come in the whole Lake St. Clair-Lake Erie area.
Just last week the International Joint Commission agreed that it was possible to fight the flooding. As the Great Lakes Coalition stressed, dredging and capital works in the Niagara River can significantly lower water levels.
Back in April the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) promised coalition representatives that he would act. However, nothing has happened. I believe strongly that a man-made solution to the flooding exists. I tell the Government that it must act now to achieve it.


THREAT CAUSED BY AIDS EPIDEMIC-NEED FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the Panos Institute, a London-based research group which specializes in Third World issues, concludes that AIDS could wipe out half the population of some African countries. The impact of such a tragic occurrence will be devastating to African countries.
Canada must be concerned about the pending catastrophe. If the virus were to become more infectious, it could threaten human existence the world over. The strains which such an epidemic would impose upon our health system and facilities would be equivalent to the results of an atomic war.
Canada would have to impose immigration AID tests. Canada must make AIDS research a major priority, for if we only pay lip service to this festering problem, the results could be devastating to Canada.
Canada has the facilities, the personnel, and a track record in medical research to help find a solution. Banting gave the world the cure for diabetes; the same can happen for AIDS. Let us all support drug patent Bill C-22 which will provide research funds for a future AIDS cure.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: At long last, Mr. Speaker, after spending 17 months to study, to hold meetings and to analyze briefs, the Forget Commission is about to release its report. It will now be up to us as Government Members to listen to the people and give serious consideration to the recommendations aimed at improving the unemployment insurance system.
Mr. Speaker, our Government had also given the Forget Commission a mandate to examine the thorny issue of early retirees. As Member for the particularly hard hit region of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, I can tell you that I had an opportunity to meet with a number of early retirees. They drew my attention to the fact that this legislation has been harmful to them because they retired early with the conviction

December 3, 1986
that they would be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. They were badly mistaken.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Forget Commission will take a clear position so that, as soon as possible, we Government Members will be in a position to make a decision in the best interest of early retirees.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, last week, the Language Training and Development Branch had a meeting with all employees to explain the new language training policies adopted by Treasury Board on October 23, 1986. The new guidelines will eliminate 25 per cent of the language training received up to now by public servants during normal working hours. If demand continues to exist, training will have to be provided by private instructors outside normal working hou. s.
This proposal means a cut of around 48 per cent in person-years set aside for language training. The proposal reflects the Government's position that the Public Service of Canada has a sufficiently large pool of bilingual resources. Mr. Speaker, this is a false assumption, and the Commissioner of Official Languages has said so every year. Official languages instruction depends on the attitude of the managers responsible for implementing the policy, and they certainly are not all enthusiastic proponents of bilinguism. When is this Government going to stop saying one thing and doing the exact opposite? When will this Government get up enough courage to introduce progressive policies regarding our official language programs?


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, for years now Government has been studying the plight of artists. Numerous recommendations have been made to improve the financial situation particularly of performing artists.
Two task forces and a parliamentary committee have recommended including performing artists under unemployment insurance. These are people in Canada who experience considerable periods of unemployment between engagements, and they are not very well paid when they work.
The Government has delayed enacting any improvement in the situation on the grounds that the Forget Commission was studying the matter. Now that we have the Forget Commission report, which does not even address the issue, it is time for action.
I call upon the Government to perform now, to stop delaying, and to enact the necessary changes before the Conservative Government's theatre run is over. Performing artists are the Government's spectators now. They will be among the players in the next election.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend's Liberal Party gathering highlighted the divisions which are increasingly becoming more and more evident to a growing number of Canadians. It is a Party heading in all directions. The divisions within the Liberal Party escalate as Liberal Members of Parliament insist that the Leader accept policy resolutions as policies of the Party. The Leader, who says he has returned the Party to the grassroots, tells these same people that certain policy resolutions do not count.
At the convention, Mr. Speaker, the grassroots voted to make Canada a nuclear free zone. The Leader says: "Let's really think about this one". Our NATO allies do not have to think about it. They know that such a detrimental policy would be in conflict with our NATO obligations. Where does the Liberal Party stand on this important issue? Canadians and our allies do not want, need, or deserve uncertainty in our NATO policies.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you a letter sent by Mr. Paul M. Tellier, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, to Mr. James H. Taylor, Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs. It says, in part:
The Prime Minister has asked me to communicate with you with respect to the processing by your Department of requests for access to departmental records under the Access to Information Act.
It is important that you and your responsible officials ensure that your Minister is fully informed and that he personally signs off on the proposed release of any information that is potentially embarrassing either to your Department or to the Government.
December 3, 1986

In addition, where the records being requested relate to the Prime Minister or the operations of his Office, once your Minister has signed off, you should arrange for consultations on the material being proposed for disclosure with Dr. J. A. Doucet, Senior Advisor to the Prime Minister.
It is my opinion that the Government, instead of trying to hide embarrassing information, should avoid creating such embarrassment for itself in the first place and then it would not have to incite others to flout the law.


RIGHT TO LIFE
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, there are a great many people in this country working very hard to provide alternatives to abortion, finding caring and compassionate solutions to the problem of unexpected pregnancy. One such group is the national organization Alliance for Life which co-ordinates pro-life educational activities through its 255 affiliates across the country.
Alliance for Life has recently applied for a grant under the funding program for National Voluntary Health and Social Service Organizations administered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). Provision of a sustaining grant to Alliance for Life would allow the organization to identify areas where help is needed for distressed pregnant women, to expand education programs relevant to adolescents whereby teen pregnancies would be reduced, and to hire personnel to set up self-help groups for post-abortion trauma. I would hope that the officials concerned in the Department of National Health and Welfare will quickly approve the application of this most worth-while organization.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, assasinations, political imprisonment, and "captures" by government armed forces are growing in El Salvador. In the first 10 months of 1985 there were 2,392 of these major crimes against human rights. In the first 10 months of 1986 there were 3,238, an increase of 35 per cent in one year. Yet the Canadian Government pretends that the Salvadoran regime of Napoleon Duarte is democratic and is reducing the violations of human rights. What nonsense, Mr. Speaker.
Many independent Canadian observers have exposed the continuing oppression in El Salvador. Now Professor Meyer Brownstone, who months ago received Canada's Pearson Medal for Peace, has reported publicly on his recent visit to El Salvador. He not only recounts these growing bloody human rights violations but he also reports that Canada's $8 million

aid project is entangled in Salvadoran Government mismanagement and corruption, with a local bank raking off $1 million in fees and storage charges for fertilizer before it is all delivered.
Once again I call upon the Government of Canada to stop this aid to Duarte's corrupt and murderous Government and to conduct a public inquiry into the use of the aid that has already been sent.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the House that we Quebec Conservative Members will long remember the hostile attitude towards Quebec which Quebec Liberal Members across the aisle have adopted in recent days in their unrelenting attack against our proposed drug legislation. The Federation de Page d'or de la province de Quebec, the Quebec senior citizen federation, fully supports more laboratory and drug industry research to promote better health among elderly Canadians.
The Quebec National Assembly has unanimously endorsed our initiative. Quebec press, radio and TV reporters are enthusiastic about our Bill, and I would refer Hon. Members to editorials which appeared in Le Droit and La Presse about drug industry piracy, respectively on November 19 and 27, 1986. Ever since 1968 when the present Liberal leader gave free rein to pill copiers, there has been no research, innovation and new jobs in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, time has come for the Liberals to acknowledge that Quebec has the right and the ability to be restored as a drug industry centre which creates gainful employment, and they ought to stop putting their own petty partisan ambitions ahead of the interests of Quebecers.


REFUGEES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) has accused me of misrepresentation and spreading fear among Canadians concerning the 25-year old Iranian who has asked for refugee status in Canada. The Minister is confused and inconsistent.

December 3, 1986
Oral Questions
He is looking for scapegoats to hide his own shortcomings. The facts are very clear and the options many. He can immediately issue a ministerial permit to allow this man into the country. He can grant him refugee status, or allow the community of Yarmouth to sponsor him as one of 6,000 people who will be sponsored by individual communities, over and above government sponsorship, in 1986.
For the Minister to claim that he does not have the power under the regulations to allow this person to come to Canada is a complete and very irresponsible fabrication. That he takes this position when Canadians are prepared to feed, house, and employ this person is a disgrace. The Minister has the power to save this man. He can allow people from Nova Scotia to sponsor this man as they have sponsored four others in the last year, and I cannot understand why he is looking for excuses not to do it. He should simply say he does not wish to extend the hand of compassion and humanitarianism or allow Canadians to act in the spirit of the prestigous award Canada received for helping others in need. That is what he should be doing instead of hiding behind excuses.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On November 25 my colleague from Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic asked the Minister why he had changed the drug legislation so that multinationals are no longer required to manufacture active ingredients in Canada. As found at page 1504 of Hansard, the Minister said:
-we did it because we were asked to by the generic companies and the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association.
The Minister is now in receipt of a letter from the Chairman of the CDMA which says:
Your statement in the House of Commons totally misrepresents our meeting. We demand that you retract immediately this false assertion.
Will the Minister admit he was wrong and retract that assertion?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, actually the first time that question was asked by his colleague was on November 21. He will find a complete answer at page 1399 of Hansard. In fact this is a ridiculous discussion.
I wish the Hon. Member would co-operate in getting this Bill to committee so we can follow up on it. However, if he insists on knowing, on September 9, in Toronto, at the offices of Policy Concepts, the lobbying firm for the CDMA, my executive assistant met with Dr. Calenti, head of the CDMA,
and Dr. Kubela, head of Torcan. They said then that the manufacturing provisions of the June 27 draft would not permit the generic companies to get into manufacturing. They would like to see either the first right of refusal removed, which would deny patent protection and is obviously something we do not approve of, or a window of opportunity between licences to manufacture and import. We thought that was a good idea, proceeded with it, and incorporated it into Bill C-22.


CHANGE FROM DRAFT BILL
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is not a ridiculous discussion despite the Minister's attempt to waffle his way out of the situation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: In response to a question from the Hon. Member for Oshawa yesterday he said it again:
It was removed from the Bill because the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association-asked that it be removed.
Why did he change the legislation? Will he retract his earlier statement? Who influenced him to change that Bill?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, for the sixth time in this House of Commons, I will repeat. Dr. Calenti, head of CDMA, and Dr. Kubela, head of Torcan, in a meeting on September 9 in Toronto suggested that the provisions in the June 27 draft would not provide the generic companies with an opportunity to get into manufacturing and that they would prefer to have a window of opportunity between licences to manufacture and import. They wanted four to five years. We provided three years. However, the genesis of the idea was from that group. We thought it was a good idea. We would like to get the Bill to committee to demonstrate to the Hon. Member and the rest of the country why it is a good idea.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER SEEK MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the letter from the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada is quite clear. My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is therefore: Considering that his Minister has misled the House, is he going to advise the Prime Minister to ask for the Minister's resignation?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, questions about who said what to whom and when are a ridiculous waste of the time of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Oueliet:: Arrogant.
December 3, 1986


Harvie Andre: If the Hon. Member is really interested in Bill C-22, its provisions, and its effects on manufacturing, research, and health care of Canadians, he will co-operate with the House in sending his Bill to committee where we will have all of these discussions as parliamentary procedure dictates we should.


POSITION OF MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, we know who influenced the Minister. Mr. Stettler of the U.S. multinationals said last month that the November 7 Bill is more satisfactory to them than the June one. He claimed the penalties in the June Bill were too harsh. Can the Minister explain why the U.S. multinationals are happier with this Bill than with the June Bill?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, one of the people who influenced me on this Bill was Dr. Philip Seeman, the head of the Pharmacology Department of the University of Toronto, who said in Toronto yesterday:
Senior citizens are being seriously misled by politicians, who tell them prices will skyrocket or that their provincial drug plans may be cut, but they're being denied drugs that could improve their life.
We want to stop that denial.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY WHY AMERICAN MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES PREFER NOVEMBER 7 BILL
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Minister was influenced in some way. On a program televised by the CBC last month, Mr. Stettler, representing the U.S. multinationals, said that the Bill introduced on November 7 was more acceptable than the June Bill. Could the Minister explain this preference of the U.S. multinationals?

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I was also influenced by the writer of a letter to the editor in Saturday's Globe and Mail who said:
As a father of two children with cystic fibrosis I find appalling the hysterical criticism by, among others, the opposition parties concerning proposals to amend the Patent Act.
Our family literally depends for its survival on more and better drugs. Companies producing only generic drugs have contributed nothing to our survival and will not in future.
Any proposal that will encourage the development of better drugs deserves universal support.
1 support that father of sick children and the father of any sick children who want more health care in this country. If the Member does, she will support this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


PROPOSED COMMITTEE HEARINGS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question on the same subject is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Government House Leader. I was just informed before Question Period that the Government has refused to go along with a request to have a committee studying this Bill go to Halifax, Vancouver, Montreal, and a number of other communities, and that the Government plans to bring in closure. Will he tell the House if the real reason that the Government will now try to stop this Bill being discussed throughout the country with the people of Canada is that he has been informed by the Nova Scotia Government that it wants the federal Government to withdraw the Bill because, in the view of the Nova Scotia Government, this Bill will serve only the interests of international drug companies and that Nova Scotians ought not to be treated like guinea-pigs?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that we have had discussions for some time, trying to work out a proposition. I believe the Government has put forth a very reasonable proposition, with additional time for debate at second reading, and conditions to travel. It is certainly a new step in the new spirit of parliamentary reform to have a legislative committee travel and visit various cities across the country, as was requested by the New Democratic Party. We were really proposing up to two and a half months for further consideration of this Bill.
What we are really after is to allow the debate on this Bill to go ahead so that all Canadians and all parliamentarians can get a full understanding of the comprehensive nature of the Bill, and all the facts can be laid out on the table so that the people of Canada can judge. However, the opposition Parties have been frustrating our attempts to bring the Bill ahead and send it to committee for full discussion.


PUBLICS VIEWS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that what the Government really wanted to do in those negotiations was effectively shut off all debate in the House of Commons after the committee hearings took place outside the House of Commons? Will the Minister confirm that? More specifically, will he acknowledge that the Government of Nova Scotia, a Conservative Government, has now joined with thousands of Canadians across the country and demanded that this Bill be taken off the Order Paper?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party keeps insisting that the people of Canada only see things his way. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has been citing many, many experts on this subject who fully support

December 3, 1986
Oral Questions
the Government's initiative. Quite frankly, when the Government proposes up to two and a half months to consider this Bill, that certainly does not sound like a Government that is stifling debate.


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister knows full well that it is the same Government that wanted virtually no debate after the hearings. That is the reality and the Minister knows it.


POSITION OF CANADIAN DRUG MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the Minister responsible for the Bill. He could not have been more explicit when he said to me in the House yesterday, with reference to a clause that was taken out of the Bill: "It was removed from the Bill because the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association which represents the generic companies asked that it be removed". The letter that he received from that association, with reference to a meeting on October 14, said that quite the opposite request was made, that they wanted it in to ensure Canadian manufacturing took place in Canada. Will he confirm that he was at that meeting and that what they were saying was the case? If so, will he do the right thing and admit that he misled the House yesterday?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, for the seventh or eighth time, this question was originally asked on November 21. I refer the Hon. Leader of the NDP to page 1399 of Hansard. I repeat that on September 9 in Toronto, at a meeting between my staff and Doctor Calenti and Doctor Kubela, the generic companies suggested that the manufacturing provisions would not allow them to get into the fine chemicals manufacturing because the brand names would manufacture the major drugs, which are the only ones generics are interested in copying.
They suggested that they would have an opportunity to get into fine chemicals if we would change, to provide a gap between licences to manufacture and import. We provided that three-year gap. The idea came from the CDMA and turned out to be an idea that we found reasonable because it would bring on generic competition in those major drugs a little earlier. It was their initial suggestion and their idea which we adopted. If the Hon. Member is suggesting that we have adopted all of their suggestions, we have not. They are in the business of copying, and obviously they are opposed to anything that gets in the way of their being able to copy other people's discoveries.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Can he tell
the House under whose authority the Prime Minister's Office organized a secret coaching yesterday of Progressive Conservative Human Rights appointees just hours before the appointees were supposed to come before a committee and testify about their own suitability as candidates for the Human Rights Tribunal?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing secret about the briefings. The candidates had this opportunity available to them. They could respond to the invitation and if they chose not to, they did not have to do so. The fact is it was to provide a clearer outline of their duties and obligations and to remind them of the conflict of interest qualifications which are required. It was quite normal to outline these things to the candidates.
I might just remind the Hon. Member that this is a new process which has been adopted by the Government. This Government is not ashamed of the appointments it makes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is why we are prepared to have the candidates come before a parliamentary committee for consideration.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the process was so open that even the Clerk of the committee did not even know about the secret meeting taking place over at the Langevin Block.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: First we had the resumes doctored, which was proven yesterday. Now we have appointees being coached. Just how low will the Government stoop-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -to get its unqualified PC appointees on the Human Rights Tribunal, which deserves better?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the Hon. Member's question is that we have opened up a secret process. The Hon. Member, and the Party of which she is a member, are the experts on secrecy.


REVIEW OF APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice who is responsible for the Canadian Human Rights Commission. He presumably recognizes that it is the role of the Clerk of the committee to brief appointees with respect to procedures before that committee. Does the Minister not recognize that this blatant political interference by the Prime Minister's Office-after the news of doctored resumes and after restrictions by Tories on the number of appointees who could be

December 3, 1986

reviewed-makes a total mockery of the parliamentary oversight process in this important area of human rights?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of briefings, if they are requested, is to allow people who have never appeared before a parliamentary committee to understand the nature and scope of the procedure, as the Hon. Member suggests, but also to get an insight with respect to the function and role of public officials. They are public officials and have the right to question what is expected of them in carrying out their responsibility. This has been going on as a continuing process. It is not a secret process. It is a logical process, as pointed out by the Deputy Prime Minister.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the only person who requested these meetings was the official from the Prime Minister's Office who put the meetings together. This is nothing more than blatant political thuggery by the Prime Minister, and that's not good enough.


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: It is thuggery, that is all it is, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know whether the Hon. Member has made it better or worse by calling it "political thuggery"-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: -but it might have been worse if it was just "thuggery". In any event, I would urge all Hon. Members to use as much discretion with their language as possible.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the additional news today that the Prime Minister has ordered all Government Departments to vet through his office any potentially embarrassing requests under the Access to Information Act, will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House why the Prime Minister is using his office in a way which displays such utter contempt not just for the access to information legislation but for Parliament itself?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it might be worthwhile to remind the Hon. Member that there
Oral Questions
would not have been an Access to Information Act had it not been for this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Second, it is perfectly normal to ensure that accurate and timely information is provided, and that is all that was covered in this particular request.


REFERENCE TO POTENTIALLY EMBARRASSING INFORMATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and it is on the same topic. In the letter the Clerk of the Privy Council sent to certain Deputy Ministers, he said in part that Ministers were personally to sign off on proposed release of information which is potentially embarrassing. It is not for accuracy but for embarrassment. Since when is potential embarrassment a criterion for screening information under the Access to Information Act?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Very simply put, Mr. Speaker, from time to time inaccurate information could be embarrassing, I suspect.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
Don Boudria: I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Instead of trying to get around the Access to Information Act in order to hide embarrassing situation, perhaps the Government should avoid getting into such situations in the first place. Wouldn't that be better than refusing to disclose the facts to Parliament and the people of Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, it is a fairly normal process to ensure that the information which is provided is accurate-


Don Boudria: And not embarrassing.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I rest my case there. The Hon. Member would certainly like to find embarrassing information. He not only makes it a hobby, he makes it a full-time occupation.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and it has to do with the Forget Commission Report. The Minister told me on Monday he would answer

December 3, 1986
Oral Questions
questions in the House Wednesday afternoon. That is now. The time has arrived.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The time is now.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: The time has arrived.


Mr. Speaker:: I know all Hon. Members would want to remain silent so the Hon. Member can get on with the question-because if he does not, the time will never arrive.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with the thousands of Canadians who lost their unemployment insurance benefits because they happen to have taken an early retirement pension from their workplaces. The Minister and the Government have been saying all along: "We will wait for the Forget Commission Report". The Forget Commission Report has now come down. It states the Government was wrong in the way it went about doing that. Can the Minister stand in his place right now and tell the House that he intends to replace those unemployment insurance benefits which were so cruelly taken away from unemployed workers?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member must realize that three o'clock is still the afternoon.


Mr. Blaikie:: Is he going to answer questions or is he just going to make a statement?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Wait for them.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Order over there.


REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF BENEFITS FOR EARLY RETIREES
John R. Rodriguez: The Minister knows full well there are no question permitted after he makes a statement this afternoon at three o'clock. He specifically said he would answer questions about the Forget Commission Report Wednesday afternoon. I want to tell him these people are waiting.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Listen to the fat cats laugh.


Mr. Speaker:: I think all Hon. Members will note that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt is seeking the Chair's help, assistance, and protection. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


John R. Rodriguez: The Government might think it is funny, Mr. Speaker, but there are thousands of unemployed workers who do not think it is funny and who are watching. Will the Minister stand in his place right now and tell us-and do not send me notes-when he will replace those benefits which were removed from unemployed workers?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday I said, as the Hon. Member just recalled, that I would provide details or answers this afternoon. I wasn't joking when I said two minutes ago that at three o'clock this afternoon I would provide details on the pensions issue. But I repeat, three o'clock is still part of the afternoon.


AIR TRANSPORT
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday we learned of CP Air being purchased by Pacific Western. Does the Minister realize that in the document Freedom to Move his Government promised that deregulation would increase competition? Since then we have witnessed seven major takeovers in the airline industry. Is the Minister ready to allow this move to take place that will result in there being only two major airlines in Canada? Is his Government ready to allow this to take place?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I regret the savage attack that the Hon. Member has made upon his colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry, who introduced the deregulation policy with respect to air transportation three years ago.


John Edward Broadbent: You had a choice.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman should have made his protests then when he was in Cabinet and approved that policy.
In the meantime, I think that Canada will be better served by having two healthy competitors than by having the giant Air Canada and a group of financially weak or regionally small airlines. We will have both. We will have two large competitive national airlines and a plethora of smaller regional and local airlines.
December 3, 1986


MINISTER'S POSITION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, to me it is obvious that the present Minister of Transport disagrees entirely with what was said and reported by his predecessor, who said on page 26: "Regulation will provide new opportunities for many segments of the air transportation industry and for many users, especially in the field of local and regional services."
What does the Minister intend to do to ensure there will be no increase in the cost to travellers, that the quality of service, especially in remote areas, will not deteriorate and that, and this is particularly important, there will still be a certain measure of competition in this field?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that after the proposed National Transportation Act was introduced into the House some six months ago and a new version was introduced several weeks ago, the Official Opposition transportation critic does not know what is in it. I refer the hon. gentleman to the Bill in which he will find there are many safeguards with respect to all the matters to which he refers, including northern and remote service. A national transportation agency will be set up which will be able to consider matters of competition and have matters referred to it. There are many protections. I suggest the hon. gentleman read the Bill. It is a genuine piece of art.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. A clear majority of Canadians have indicated to the House that they want capital punishment reinstated. We have heard from the previous Minister that we can expect a free vote. My question is simply this. When can we expect this vote?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Government's position is quite clear on this issue. At the present time I am currently examining options as to how this issue might be brought forth.


VOTING DATE INQUIRY
Robert Nelson David Hicks: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister. His answer is not good enough. It is not good enough for Canadians and not good enough for the Members of this House. Trying to get a commitment from our own Government is like
Oral Questions
trying to walk across an ocean full of whipped cream on snow-shoes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Will the Deputy Prime Minister relate to the House the calendar year in which this important matter will be discussed?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can only assure the Hon. Member that I will take his vigorous representation very seriously.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NEW BRUNSWICK MINISTER OF COMMERCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Fernand Dube, Minister of Commerce and Technology for the Province of New Brunswick.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns the principle of unemployment insurance and the basic level of support that it is supposed to provide to the unemployed. The Minister may answer my question with regard to the Forget Commission or not.
If the recommendations of the Forget Commission were in place now 23 per cent of women claimants would be receiving less than $50 a week on which to live. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will not cut benefits to Canadian men and women?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think it is premature at this stage, now that we are about to table one of the most important reports ever produced by a royal commission of inquiry, to give any assurances or any commitment on the part of the Government in this respect. We are going to table the report this afternoon. We will make a statement, and at that time, I expect there will be a debate and discussion and an opportunity for Members to express their views.

December 3, 1986
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT CATEGORICALLY REJECT ALL BENEFIT REDUCTIONS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister to do something about the benefits principle so that the unemployed can survive. Considering the fact that the Forget report's main recommendation is to make the benefits structure an annual one, which would result in unemployment insurance cutbacks for three quarters of the unemployed in this country, will the Minister reject out-of-hand any reduction in benefits in Canada?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have already promised, the Minister of Finance when he brought down the Budget, and the Prime Minister when he said, in answer to a question put in this House, that the unemployment insurance review would not lead to a cut in federal contributions for the unemployed. I think what we have here is a matter of principle. This is a general statement, and within this context, we shall be discussing the implementation of the principle in the weeks to come. I think the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister were very clear in this respect.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Post Office. Since the supermailbox was introduced we have proved that it is discriminatory to Canadians, that it opens easily, reduces property value, and interferes with the privacy of mail. Will the Minister ask Canada Post to stop installation of this "super-duper" mailbox and restore home mail delivery?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member says that the case has been proven, then I wonder about his standard of proof. For example, he is talking about restoring home delivery where mail is left unattended in front of homes, and this is going on in the cities of this country. We put it in a locked box, and he claims that this is not safer. I do not know what he is talking about.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF HOME MAIL DELIVERY
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, why does the Minister not admit that Canadians have seen enough of these superboxes, why not stop installing them and restore home delivery service?


Bernard Valcourt: The Liberal Party should hire a new
information agency, Mr. Speaker. A poll taken last summer among people now serviced through these boxes reveals that 94 per cent of them are quite satisfied. Consult Canadians first, then you might make more enlightened utterances in the House.


Mr. Orlikow:: That is nonsense. Come on, tell the truth.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Revenue. The Minister and the Government have committed themselves to vigorously pursue those who have abused the SRTC program that cost the Canadian taxpayers some $3 billion in tax scams. Can the Minister confirm that not one more dollar in cash or securities was collected by the Government between the period of January to October, 1986?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly confirm that to my hon. friend when I check to see what the precise situation is. He has stated in the past that we are not vigorously pursuing the SRTC investigations. This is not so. We have 120 p.y.'s, and we have ample resources to pursue and to make certain that these fraudulent schemes, if they turn out to be such, are fully investigated and prosecuted.


NUMBER OF INVESTIGATORS
Simon Leendert de Jong: My supplementary question, through you, Mr. Speaker, is this. Will the Minister confirm if, in fact, there are only 15 full-time members on the staff who are dealing with attempting to get back some $3 billion lost through this scheme?
Will the Minister confirm that the quota system is again back in use in his Department? This means that the small firms will be checked, but the large firms are getting away.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: First of all I can assure my hon. friend that with respect to the latter part of his question he is absolutely wrong. The quota system is not back in effect. We are treating all taxpayers fairly and equitably.
Second, with respect to the information that he wishes to receive with regard to SRTC investigations and procedures, I can confirm that we have ample resources to do that job which we are committed to do on behalf of taxpayers. If more resources are required, they are available.
December 3, 1986


DEREGULATION OF NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY-EFFECT ON SMALL PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The deregulation of natural gas has been devastating to the small gas producers in western Canada. Now the Ontario Energy Board has stated that residential users of natural gas are being overcharged. How can the Government continue to support this program of deregulation which is so blatantly unfair to both the small producers and the residential users of natural gas?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in the discharge of their duties provincial agencies like that of Ontario may state their views on this question, however it is the market place which determines the situation and the agencies simply assume their responsibilities in their own regulatory sector.


PRICE CHARGED TO CONSUMERS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister told the consumers of natural gas that the price for natural gas would come down with deregulation. If the Government is determined to continue with deregulation, will the Minister now assure the consumers of natural gas that they will be able to get natural gas at a fair price this year-not next year, not in five years, but beginning this year?


Marcel Masse: At a fair price this year, yes, Mr. Speaker.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Government House Leader. Bill C-45, an Act respecting employment and employer and employee relations in the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament was passed by the House and received Royal Assent from the other place on June 27 of this year. Can the Government House Leader indicate to us when this Bill will be Gazetted, so that the employees of Parliament Hill will finally have some legal rights?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that is currently before the Board of Internal Economy, on which there are representatives of all Parties, including yourself, Sir. This issue is currently being considered. As a matter of fact it will be dealt with at tonight's meeting. There
Oral Questions
is a disposition to proceed, at least on parts of this Bill, at the earliest possible date. I would expect that there would be a recommendation coming forward from the Board of Internal Economy in the very near future.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the congenial Minister of Transport. I am sure that that is not a contradiction in terms.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that a few weeks ago Air Canada began conducting secret and mandatory drug tests on all possible future employees. Has Air Canada explained to the Minister why, when the initial test is positive, that the Air Canada drug test manual does not require a second test, which is the only acceptable confirmation procedure that would stand up in a court of law? By the way, a second test is routine for race horses when the first test proves positive. Why does Air Canada not require a second test?


John Carnell Crosbie: I am glad to be called congenial. That has been one of my dominant traits for many years.
As I understand it from Air Canada, these tests are conducted as part of the regular medical examination that any applicant for a new job with Air Canada has to have. No one has been called in for a test who already works at Air Canada. They are very simple tests to do, and can be done very easily when the normal medical examination is done.
With reference to the question of a second test, or the exact point that the hon. gentleman is asking, I will have to check into that and report back to him.


REQUEST FOR MORATORIUM ON EMPLOYEE DRUG TESTING
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I wonder whether the Minister of Transport can speak on his behalf and tell us whether or not, because of the controversy around this issue, the Government is now ready to put an end to employee drug testing in this country, or at the very least impose a moratorium on drug testing until we have some minimum national standards, so that prospective employees have some rights?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, from the point of view of a national drug strategy I wish to tell the Hon. Member, as has been stated before, that the Government does not have any intention to move into mandatory drug testing. There is a condition, which I think has been generally accepted by the public, namely, that where health and safety are a consideration, this type of testing is legitimate. Obviously, even then there must be some

December 3, 1986
Oral Questions
very serious concerns raised in terms of appeal or second testing, as the Minister of Transport has raised.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: For Air Canada baggage people?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: But those are the conditions under which the Government is proceeding on its national program.


UNITED STATES DUTY ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Yesterday I received a letter from the Ontario Lumber Manufacturers' Association which states in part:
The entire industry, across Canada, remains resolute in its unanimous decision, through C.F.I.C., to continue the lumber C.V.D. defence to the end, without concessions or deals such as the Government proposals which have seriously compromised our position.
I ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, why has she refused to support the lumber industry and its thousands of workers across the country? Why has she been so weak?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, on this very difficult issue we have been consistent in our efforts to seek a solution which will retain Canada's sovereignty, keep the revenues in Canada, leave the provinces the right to manage their own natural resources, which they own, and the flexibility to increase stumpage fees, which are theirs, thereby protecting Canadian industry and protecting Canadian jobs. That has been the consistent approach we have taken from the start of this very difficult situation. We have had the support of the nine provinces that own the timber, and the labour union involved, and a lot of the industry.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY-MINISTER'S POSITION
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the letter goes on to state:
It is one thing to negotiate dollars and cents; it is completely unacceptable to negotiate Canada's sovereignty.
Why has the Minister buckled under to U.S. pressure and failed to defend Canadian sovereign interests in determining the value of our own natural resources?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has it exactly backward. The process we are following, should it be successful and remove this distasteful precedent from the books, will protect our sovereignty. The course he is suggesting will put our sovereignty at risk and open every resource industry in the country to American scrutiny and American management. That is what he will not understand and he fails to accept.


B. Keith Penner: Join the industry and fight the thing.


APARTHEID
John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Recently some top ranking officials from African States surrounding South Africa requested that Canada become involved in the military defence of South African transport corridors and key economic projects in Zambia and Zimbabwe. However, the two states bordering South Africa have failed to impose sanctions. Is the Minister investigating the matter? Will he inform these two Commonwealth countries of Canada's disapproval of conducting trade with South Africa?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there are several elements to that question. Let me try to sort them out and answer each one. First, if the States referred to are Zambia and Zimbabwe, they have both committed themselves to undertaking the elements of the Nassau Accord, and I believe they will within their capacity to do that. Second, Canada has no intention to provide military aid in the region, although we intend to continue and to increase our aid to Zimbabwe, to Zambia, to other countries in the front line states, and to SADCC. Third, I think any fair minded individual would acknowledge, in terms of the burden being borne caused by apartheid, that people who live in Zambia and Zimbabwe bear much more of the burden and often much more lethally than we do in Canada.


DISASTERS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for either the Minister of National Health and Welfare or perhaps the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It was the Minister of National Health who answered questions relating to Chernobyl in the spring. He may be aware that scientists are looking into the possibility that at least 30,000 caribou in Labrador and Quebec died from radiation contamination caused by the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, according to a provincial wildlife biologist in Newfoundland today. What is the federal Government doing in respect of this possibility? What investigations are taking place as a result of federal government action?
When will we have a statement by the Minister on what monitoring took place in Canada after Chernobyl, where it
#
iV

December 3, 1986

took place, what they were monitoring, and just what was the total result as far as radioactive contamination in Canada was concerned as a consequence result of the Chernobyl accident?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, taking the Hon. Member's last question first, if I might, at the time of the Chernobyl accident and the days and weeks following, very full information along the lines mentioned by the Hon. Member was given. If he feels it would be helpful for the House and the country for an update to be given from that period onward, I would be willing to consider it and do it. In terms of the effect upon wildlife north of the sixtieth parallel, I have not had any notice of it. I will check it. In respect of other areas affected, all I can say at this stage is that the information I have received indicates that Canadians are not at risk. I will double-check it.


ABILITY TO MONITOR RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be very useful if the Minister would provide the House with an update on what information was gathered respecting radioactive contamination in Canada. I hope he will look into the problem north of the sixtieth parallel. It is on the CP wire, if he is looking for information.
Many serious questions have been raised in respect of Canada's ability to monitor, and what it monitors, in terms of radioactive contamination, as a result of the inquiry the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway and I have been conducting across the country. Will the Minister assure us that he will make a statement in the House respecting our ability to monitor, and provide an opportunity for Hon. Members to ask questions about this very important topic?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my first answer, I am willing to make the information available. With regard to what would be the best form and what would be the best approach in terms of discussing it with the Parties in the House, obviously I would leave that to the Deputy Prime Minister. However, I will be as open as possible.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. For almost eleven months now early retirees throughout Canada have been waiting for an answer as to how they should fare under the unemployment insurance system. We know that the Forget report commissioned by the former and present Ministers will be tabled today. Should the Forget
Privilege-Ms. Copps
Commission recommend retroactive payments, apparently the Government will honour this commitment and pay up. The Minister said a moment ago that he would answer at three o'clock. It is now 3.05 p.m., and elderly Canadians want to know where they stand. Can the Minister live up to his promise to respond in time and forthwith tell the thousands of elderly who are waiting for his answer that indeed they will get a retroactive payment?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see what my colleague is driving at. As I just said, I am about to table the report. I should like to correct his statement. The Hon. Member is saying that if the Forget Commission should recommend such or such a thing, the Government is committed to act on it. Not at all. The Government did undertake to seek the advice of the Forget Commission, and now we have the answer. All I can say to my colleague is that, if the Chair will allow me, I will table these documents in two or three minutes. Then I will respond to your questions.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: The Chair should like to advise the House that it has received notice of two questions of privilege, one from the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and one from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). The questions of privilege are on the same subject. The Chair proposes to hear both Hon. Members, one after the other. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East served notice just prior to the Hon. Member for Burnaby, so the Chair will recognize first the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS-ALLEGED COACHING OF WITNESSES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Standing Committee on Human Rights met pursuant to Standing Order 104 to review the qualifications of seven recent appointees to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal panel. During the course of questioning it was revealed that at least three witnesses had attended a secret meeting earlier that same day in the Prime Minister's Office. Invitations were extended by a staff member from the Prime Minister's Office. In attendance at the meeting were officials of the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the office of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister.
Witnesses who attended the meeting informed the committee that during the meeting it was discussed what types of questions would be asked at the committee hearing and what personal characteristics the witnesses should promote in their
1742

December 3, 1986
Privilege-Ms. Copps
responses. One witness stated that officials had in their possession copies of their resumes.
The Clerk of the Standing Committee on Human Rights who had invited all witnesses to contact him with any questions regarding the committee procedure had no prior knowledge of the secret meeting in the Prime Minister's Office. For officials of the Prime Minister's office, the office of the Minister of Justice, and the Parliamentary Secretary to meet secretly with and coach witnesses being called before a committee of the House is an extremely serious breach of privilege.
I draw Your Honour's attention to citation 638 of Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition which reads:
To tamper with a witness in regard to the evidence to be given before the House or any committee or to endeavour directly or indirectly, to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence is a breach of privilege. Corruption or intimidation is not an essential ingredient in this offence. It is equally a breach of privilege to attempt, by persuasion or solicitations of any kind, to induce a witness not to attend, or to withhold evidence or to give false evidence.
I conclude by stating that if you find, Mr. Speaker, a prima facie case of breach of privilege, I am prepared to move the necessary motion.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice this morning of a similar question of privilege arising from the events which took place yesterday in the Standing Committee on Human Rights. I should like to add some background to the question of privilege.
The appointments in question are made on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice pursuant to Section 38.1 and Section 38.2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. These particular appointments are of a quasi-judicial nature to a very important tribunal position. The tribunal appointees in question are appointed by the president of the Human Rights Tribunal, a distinguished Canadian, Mr. Sidney Lederman, who in turn appoints people to hear complaints which have arisen under the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Tribunal appointees have very extensive powers to call evidence and other powers of a quasi-judicial nature. I think it is important to underline the fact that we are dealing here with appointments of a quasi-judicial nature which are subject to review under the provisions of the Standing Orders. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), has already referred to the relevent Standing Order.
Under Standing Order 103 it is a Minister of the Crown who lays upon the Table the appointments and under Standing Order 104 it is up to the committee to which the appointments are referred to decide whether or not to examine the qualifications and competence of the appointee or nominee.
Surely there are serious questions about the integrity of this process when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Gerin) himself participates in a meeting to brief the appointees before their appearance before the Standing Committee on Human Rights. What we are dealing with here is a situation in which the Prime Minister's office has involved
itself for the purpose of briefing witnesses who are to appear before a committee of this Parliament. Why would the Prime Minister's office involve itself in this way? The Prime Minister's office was not responsible for these appointments. These people were appointed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn). The individual who briefed these appointees is a Mr. Denis Jolette of the Prime Minister's office.
I want to note as well that these individuals did not request any sort of briefing by the Prime Minister's office or indeed by anyone else. Rather, the secretary to the official from the Prime Minister's Office, whose name is Renee Levasseur, telephoned the appointees the previous day to urge them to attend the meeting which was held yesterday morning in the Prime Minister's office in the Langevin Block. There was no discussion whatever with the clerk of the Committee about this particular meeting. The clerk did not even know that the meeting was taking place. There was no discussion whatever with the full-time staff of the committee. They knew nothing about the meeting. There was no discussion with members of the committee. The Hon. Member from Hamilton East and myself and other members of the committee were not informed that this briefing, this coaching, by the Prime Minister's office was taking place.
The issue here is quite clear and yet is very fundamental, Mr. Speaker. We as a Parliament have embarked upon a process of scrutiny, of review, of the appointments made by the Government. Surely the process of review is tainted, is undermined, if prior to the committee in question conducting that review the Prime Minister's office meets with the people that are appointed and briefs them about what to expect before that review. That surely constitutes a breach of the privileges of all Members of this House. What it does is effectively undermine one of the very important new Standing Orders of the House of Commons itself.
It may be coincidence that the two people who were briefed that morning in the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) just happened to be the two people who were requested to appear before the committee by the two Opposition Members of Parliament on the committee. It may be coincidence, Mr. Speaker, but I doubt it. That again raises very grave questions about the purpose of this particular briefing.
Your Honour is aware of the maxim that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done as well. Yesterday in the committee the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice was very candid and straightforward with the committee. He said that he did not know who had convened the meeting and that it was not himself. He said he did not know who was invited to attend the meeting because he did not issue the invitations. What we have is the Prime Minister's office involving itself in this process. As I suggest, what could give rise to a clearer prima facie case of a breach of the privileges of this House and of the Members of this House than that kind of political interference in the oversight process of Parliament itself?
December 3, 1986

I urge Your Elonour to recognize that indeed we do have Standing Orders here which have been undermined and thwarted by the conduct of the Government and by the conduct of the Prime Minister's office.
One final point. I have mentioned that we are dealing here with quasi-judicial appointments. Your Honour can imagine the uproar if the Prime Minister's office were to brief people being appointed to judicial positions. We are not just dealing with any quasi-judicial appointment here, we are dealing with a situation in which these appointees have come under signficant attack because it has been suggested that they were, in some cases, appointed on the basis of their political credentials. There have been questions about the doctoring of resumes. There have been concerns expressed about the nature of the review process itself. Taken in that context, as well as a situation in which questions were already raised about the partisan political involvement in this important human rights oversight process, to allow this kind of blatant political manipulation by the Prime Minister's office to proceed is a clear breach of the privileges of the Members of this House. Certainly I too am prepared to move the necessary motion should Your Honour find that a prima facie case has been established.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling on other Members, perhaps the Chair could direct a question to the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). I think it is important that the Chair understand exactly what the point is that the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) are making.
There has been reference-I think just now by the Member from Burnaby-to the fact that one or more of these suggested appointments may have political affiliation. The Chair would like to know clearly whether the position which the Hon. Member is taking is that any person who is a member of a political Party is automatically barred from being considered by a Government for these appointments. I think it very important that that point be clarified now. If the answer to that is in the negative, then the Chair will be able to deal with the matter more easily. Could the Hon. Member for Burnaby please clarify?


Svend Johannes Robinson: If there was one issue upon which all members of the Standing Committee on Human Rights were unanimous, it was that the mere fact of political affiliation, if it is coupled with other qualifications such as recognized competence in the field of human rights, clearly does not disqualify an individual for appointment to the Human Rights Tribunal.
That was not the concern, but rather that the appointments made in a number of cases were made solely on the basis of political qualification; in other words, solely on the basis of Progressive Conservative political affiliation and in the absence of any other qualifications whatever. No one, I believe, would suggest that political affiliation in and of itself
Privilege-Ms. Copps
would disqualify any individual otherwise qualified from serving on this or other government tribunals.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair can help. I take it that the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is making it quite clear that the political affiliation of someone named to this particular Commission is not in itself the issue.


Svend Johannes Robinson: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is important that that be clarified before the discussion goes any further. The Chair would remind all Hon. Members that many Canadians belong to political parties, and not all to one political party. No doubt in the thousands of appointments made by any Government to judicial or quasi-judicial bodies it would be healthy for democracy to have a fair and even mix. However, the Chair takes the representation of the Hon. Member for Burnaby as not precluding someone from consideration because that person happens to be a member of a political party. I thank the Hon. Member for his contribution.
Are there other Hon. Members rising?


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on this alleged tampering with committee witnesses. It is odd to see that coalition complaining about a process of review of appointments which is new to the Canadian political scene. It was instituted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and our Government in response to concern that the appointments-the process which was so abused by the Liberal Party-should be reviewed by a parliamentary committee. This is the first time it has been done in Canada. The Liberal-NDP coalition Government in the Province of Ontario has refused to institute any such process.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Philip Derek Lewis: Now we have the Liberal-NDP coalition here arguing that the way we are doing it does not quite suit their convenience.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: There is always on both sides of the House a temptation to broaden the debate on a question of privilege. The Chair senses that perhaps the debate is about to be broadened, so I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to stay on the point which, I remind all Hon. Members, has been narrowed somewhat by the questions asked by the Chair and the answers given by the Hon. Member for Burnaby.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I was about to finish my remarks at that point anyway because I did not want to embarrass them any further.

December 3, 1986
Privilege-Ms. Copps
I want to refer directly to Beauchesne's because there is an allegation here of tampering and breach of privilege by persuasion or solicitation. As I said, this is a new process. People are being asked to come to Ottawa to appear before a standing committee which contains Members who hope to make political gain out of examining them as to their qualifications.


An Hon. Member:: That is the only thing they have in mind.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Point of order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can't stand the heat.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair wants to be more than fair in hearing arguments on all important points in the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and the Hon. Member for Burnaby. All Hon. Members know it is very difficult for the Chair to adjudicate upon sometimes severely conflicting points of view if motives are questioned. I ask all Hon. Members to refrain from doing that as much as is humanly possible in this very human place. I will continue to hear the Parliamentary Secretary.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we have dealt with two items. I think it is important to pin down the allegations that witnesses were tampered with, that they were asked to change their testimony, such that they came to the committee with a different view than the day they got off the plane, train or out of the car. I think it is perfectly reasonable to help people understand the procedure. It is new to them. We have no wish on either side to embarrass them over the process. Therefore, certain arrangements were made to facilitate an understanding of that process.


Svend Johannes Robinson: That is the clerk's job.


Philip Derek Lewis: If that is the clerk's job, name one committee in which it is being done by the clerk.


Svend Johannes Robinson: That is the clerk's job.


Philip Derek Lewis: Name one committee where it is being done. This is a new procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary is a veteran of the House of Commons. His exhortation to the other side to do one thing or another may or may not be received with dispatch and concurrence, but at least it should be put through the Chair.


Philip Derek Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Having dealt with that item, let us look at what the witnesses are being reviewed on. They get an understanding of the process and the questions to be asked, which are naturally as to competence and ability to fulfil the requirements of the appointment. I would also point out to the other side that we have brought in tougher conflict of interest guidelines. I do not believe, with all due respect, that Clerks of the committees are schooled in those guidelines.
I think it is only fair that these witnesses have some understanding of those guidelines and the questions which may be put concerning them before they appear before a committee. This is done simply to make the witnesses aware of the process.
In all of the allegations we have not heard that any testimony was being interfered with. When you have a resume before you which states the person's qualifications, the questions asked concern those qualifications and competence for the appointment. Surely that cannot be changed. If you have the qualifications, then you have the qualifications.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You changed the resumes.


Philip Derek Lewis: The Hon. Member is new to this process because it was not in effect in the Province of Ontario and we just brought it in here now. She understands that.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I got off the track there. In finding that there has been an abuse of the privilege of members of these committees, whether it is this committee or any other, surely there has to be more proof than we have heard here today that a witness has been tampered with or that there has been, directly or indirectly, any attempt to deter or hinder any person from appearing. Deter or hinder! We set up the process to get them before the committee so how can we be deterring or hindering? We are bringing them in and explaining the process.
This entire question of privilege revolves around whether or not anything untoward was done in trying to explain to a Canadian citizens who have decided to come forward and serve their country as appointees how the process works. Should they not have the right to understand the process whereby they appear before a parliamentary committee? I believe we owe it to any individual coming before a committee to be questioned on their abilities and competence to go over the process with them. It is not to change their resume, not to suggest we are going to do anything different than ask them questions. We have a duty to tell them the nature of the process and, I submit, that is all that has been done and nothing more.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I realize this is a very serious question and one which you will have to deliberate at some length. I believe as you review the transcripts of the meetings last night you will see that clear evidence was presented from at least two witnesses that the resumes were tampered with. More specifically, they indicated to the committee that they had sent resumes which included their political connections and those resumes had been altered. The witnesses stated that they had not altered the resumes, that the original resumes sent included a reference to membership in the Progressive Conservative Party. I believe that if you review the resumes and the "blues", Mr. Speaker, you will see that there was clear evidence of tampering, if the viords of the witnesses are to be believed.
December 3, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: I will continue to hear Hon. Members, but there is something that I feel I am duty bound to clarify with all Members. I happen to know that one of the witnesses before this particular committee is a member of the riding association of the riding which I represent. I want to assure Hon. Members that I have had no discussions with that citizen. I want Hon. Members to know that the Chair is listening to submissions with very great care. I felt I owed a duty to make it clear to all Hon. Members that one of the persons involved is a member of the riding association in my own constituency. I have had nothing to do with influencing what that person has said or done. In case there is any doubt, I want it to be absolutely clear to the House that that is the case.
I noticed that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East and the Member for Burnaby did not mention that. I take it that that was out of regard for the Chair, and that is a courtesy which the Chair very much appreciated. I feel honourbound to make that clear to all Hon. Members. I do not think that affects the argument, but I would rather have that understood than have suggestions made by anyone at any other time which might impute the integrity of this entire discussion. I thank Hon. Members for hearing me on that point.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have made my point. I would like to respond to the statement with regard to evidence of tampering. I believe that if the Speaker examines the transcript of the meeting he will discover that there is evidence of tampering with at least two of the resumes, and possibly three, of the appointees before the Human Rights Tribunal. I believe you should take that into consideration in making your decision, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a very brief submission on this issue. In particular, I would like to reply to some of the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary. He indicated that the witnesses were asked to appear in the Prime Minister's Office in order to allow them to understand the process and ask questions about the nature of the appearance they were about to make before the Parliamentary Committee. With the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, his arguments are not very persuasive.
It is of paramount importance to ask why the individuals were asked to appear in the Prime Minister's Office to be briefed or coached by officials from the offices of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Certain conclusions can be drawn from what occurred. Other Hon. Members have drawn those conclusions and I agree with the submissions made by them.
In my view, to condone what happened would set a very dangerous precedent. The integrity of the parliamentary committee process has been threatened by the actions of the Conservative Government in this case. It is not the role of the Prime Minister's Office to invite witnesses to be coached or briefed to help them understand the committee process. If such as responsibility exists, it is that of the nonpartisan clerk of the
Privilege-Ms. Copps
committee. It is inappropriate for the Prime Minister's Office or that of any other Minister of the Crown to invite witnesses who are about to appear before a committee to attend briefings. That would threaten the integrity of the parliamentary committee process. The conclusion which can be drawn quite readily is that the evidence of such witnesses would be tainted and not objective. If such a thing occurred within the criminal justice system, I suggest it would be tantamount to the obstruction of justice.


Mr. Nowlan:: Poppycock.


John V. Nunziata: It is not the role of the Prime Minister's Office to try to convince witnesses to give certain testimony before a parliamentary committee. In my view the Government introduced this reform to enable the Opposition to ask questions in order to satisfy Parliament and Canadians that people were being appointed to various boards and commissions based on merit. That which the Government has done has created considerable cynicism with regard to government appointments. It has also created considerable cynicism about our system.
I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that there has indeed been a breach of the privileges of this House. In my view, the Government of Canada, through the Prime Minister's office, has shown contempt for this Parliament.


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak on this matter both as a member of the House and as Chairman of the Committee on Human Rights. I noted your remarks from the chair, Mr. Speaker. Your reference in no way added to the knowledge which members of the committee had. Every member of the committee was fully aware of the political affiliation of the appointee to whom you referred. We were aware of that because it was contained in a resume which was circulated to each member of the committee. We all received copies of resumes which outlined the political affiliation of each appointee. While I welcome your statement and understand your reasons for making it, I point out to the House that we were all aware of the affiliations of that and other appointees.
That is representative of the fullness of knowledge available to members of the committee, either through papers circulated among us or through knowledge gained by questions freely asked with very few restrictions during the extended series of hearings. As an example of that, the committee discovered the holding of the information meeting which has occasioned this debate.
There has been no attempt to restrict this committee or any member of it from seeking the knowledge required to carry out the responsibility given to us by Standing Order 104. That is clear from the fact that this private meeting, which has been falsely called a secret meeting-and there is a difference-was fully described to us by the Parliamentary Secretary who was in attendance at our meeting and by each of the witnesses who attended that meeting. There was not the slightest attempt to

December 3, 1986
Privilege-Ms. Copps
withhold any information which any member of the committee desired to obtain. So free was the opportunity for seeking information that two witnesses who had been examined before we gained knowledge that the morning meeting had been held were brought back to the table at the conclusion of the examination of other witnesses. Their examination was resumed so that we could ask them about the morning meeting. There was nothing secretive about it.
1 have the same transcript as the one to which Opposition Members have referred. We do not have the full transcript yet. I believe it is only a transcript of the first three witnesses examined. When you take the time to examine the transcript, when it is available, I am confident that you will see that, as reported by the witnesses who testified, the character of the morning meeting was primarily to acquaint the witnesses with the procedures that would be followed and the kind of meeting they were going to enter yesterday afternoon. Many of them indicated that they had never appeared before a parliamentary committee previously and that they were glad to have the opportunity. I point out that if you examine the transcript you will see, as will any other Member of the House, that there was not any testimony given yesterday that would encourage or support any indication by any member of the committee or the House that what went on at that meeting in any way prejudiced the testimony that those witnesses gave to us yesterday afternoon.


Sheila Maureen Copps: How do you know?


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: No evidence at all. There was not the slightest shred of evidence that would support the conclusion that in any way that meeting tampered with the legitimate exercise of the rights and duties of those witnesses.
One can hold an opinion as to whether the meeting should have been held, but I submit that the evidence will show that there has been no breach of privileges of the Members of this House, especially members of that committee, by the meeting that was held and to which reference has been made.
I submit further that this matter is not a prima facie case of a breach of the privileges of the House, to be determined here, because it should be discussed by the committee itself. It is the committee that should deal with this matter, not the House in a plenary session. I make that point without reiterating the argument that I offered the House and the Speaker yesterday.
I suggest that the committee has the exclusive right to determine this. It is not in keeping with the traditions and procedures of the House, or the parliamentary tradition of which we are descendants, to bring into the House disagreements about the conduct of the affairs of a parliamentary standing committee. I hope we can settle that, because it will be a very negative, counterproductive precendent if every member of every committee who has some disagreement with the way in which a committee has conducted its affairs believes he or she has an opportunity to come back to the
House the next day and open the question in this chamber rather than in the committee where it should be referred.
For example, our committee will be meeting as soon as tomorrow morning. Every member of the committee has an opportunity to return to the subject with which we were dealing yesterday and, in fact, we already have a notice of motion to that effect. I submit that it is within the competence of the committee to order its life and deal with this issue. For that second reason, there is not a prima facie case of the breach of privileges of Members of the House.
I hope this can be disposed of expeditiously so that the House can get on with its proper business and that the committee can soon deal with the concerns of human rights of Canadians, as it was constituted to do.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who just took his seat argued that the matter before us is one that should be dealt with by the committee in question and not by the House. I am informed that when this matter was raised in the committee, the majority, the government supporters, voted not to question officials of the Prime Minister's Office who were involved in this morning meeting in order to get further information about what happened there. While the Hon. Member spoke at great length and with great eloquence about this matter, particularly the infamous morning meeting, I am also informed that he personally was not present at that morning meeting and is not in a position personally to say what did or did not happen there.
I particularly want to say to Your Honour that the contention of the Hon. Member who just spoke that this is not a matter of privilege to be dealt with in the House but a matter to be dealt with by the committee, is certainly not supported by the authorities. The citation in Beauchesne is taken verbatim from Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice which states:
To tamper with a witness in regard to the evidence to be given before either House or any committee of either House or to endeavour, directly or indirectly, to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence is a breach of privilege.
Interestingly enough, this is a citation which is based on a resolution to this effect, passed by the House of Commons of the United Kingdom on February 21, 1700 and, according to Erskine May, a resolution which has been regularly renewed in every succeeding session. If there is something that creates concern-and I certainly submit that there is-then on the basis of the precedent in question it can only be dealt with by the House as a breach of privilege.
I am not aware of any doctrine, tradition or precedent which enables a parliamentary committee to decide on a matter of breach of privilege. For that matter, I am not aware of any doctrine, tradition or precedent which says that a parliamentary committee or members of a parliamentary committee as such have privileges which can be dealt with or decided upon by a committee. The whole matter of parliamentary privilege
December 3, 1986

can only be dealt with by the House, not by a parliamentary committee which is simply a subsidiary body.
If there is a breach of privilege, and one could argue that the Hon. Member who just spoke is conceding that, then it must be dealt with in the House. I suggest that the Conservative Member who just spoke may well be conceding that there is a breach of privilege, because he was saying that this is a matter that has to be dealt with in the committee. At least at the conclusion of his remarks he was not arguing that there was nothing to be dealt with at all. He was saying that it had to be dealt with in the committee, and that is why I say that the Hon. Member seems to be conceding that there was a breach of privilege. If that is the case, then the precedents you must consider, going back to the resolution of the British House of Commons adopted in 1700, say that it is a matter to be dealt with in the House and not in the parliamentary committee.
I have one final point, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member to whom I have been referring talked about whether there is evidence of tampering. The precedent is clear. It says that tampering in the sense of "corruption or intimidation, though unusual, is not an essential ingredient in this offence". The concluding words of the citation which I believe has already been brought before you say that: "It is equally a breach of privilege to attempt by persuasion or solicitations of any kind to induce a witness not to attend or withhold evidence or to give false evidence". Therefore, if the words spoken by the officials in question of the Prime Minister's Office, no matter how gentle or kind they may have been, amounted to persuasion or solicitations of any kind, then in the words of the citation there is a breach of privilege. I submit with the greatest respect that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been proven.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add a few words to this question of privilege raised by Members of the two opposition Parties.
No one is arguing that the Prime Minister's Office actually interviewed these people. It has been accepted that that has actually happened. However, there are two questions which have to be answered. Why was that done and what effect does that have on our committee system? Some Members of the Government have said it was done to coach the witnesses on what happens in front of a committee. If that was the only reason the Prime Minister's Office thought it was necessary to bring witnesses of committees into that office, then I would say it does not sound like there was any reason to do so in the first place because obviously


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member who has a reputation in the House as being a skilled Parliamentarian will realize he may be putting the Chair in some difficulty. I would caution the Hon. Member who is an experienced Member of Parliament not to get too close to something which may be, I am afraid, imputing motives to the very people about whom we are speaking or of other Hon. Members of the House. I know the
Privilege-Ms. Copps
Hon. Member would not want to stray too far into that area if that is not his intention. Will the Hon. Member please continue.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what you thought I was going to say, but I certainly do not think I was going to say anything which went against the rules of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Provided the Hon. Member is now quite sure he will not say anything which goes against the rules of the House, the Chair's intervention might have been helpful.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I would almost accuse you of filibustering, Mr. Speaker, but that would be against the rules of the House.
The problem we face with this whole process is that the Prime Minister's Office, for some reason, brought these witnesses who were called before a committee of the House, and did some sort of coaching. We have no knowledge as to what took place in that coaching process. Obviously, the Prime Minister's Office felt it had to do this despite the fact that any Clerk of any committee is quite capable of explaining to witnesses what happens in committee and what are the procedures of a committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could ask the Hon. Member a question. Imagine for a moment that a constituent of the Hon. Member is here and is called to come before a committee and the Hon. Member receives a call from the constituent who asks: "Can you tell me what this is all about and give me some advice." I wonder what the response of the Hon. Member would be?


Rodney Edward Murphy: I think that is a very valid question, Mr. Speaker. I suspect that I would either give that person information or refer him to the Clerk. However, that is not what happened in this situation. As we understand it, and as people have explained it to us in addressing the question of privilege, the witnesses did not telephone the Prime Minister's Office and say: "Please tell us what is going on". The Prime Minister's Office called these witnesses in and said they must come in or should come in, whatever phraseology was used, and it would review and explain how the process works.
My problem with that is that committees of the House of Commons, through the new rules of the House, have an obligation to review various Government appointees. That was a right granted by the House and, I must admit, was a promise of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The problem that we will have, especially those of us in the opposition, is that if there is going to be coaching of witnesses, as there quite often is in court cases, then the committees themselves, and especially the opposition Members of those committees, will need to have the same abilities, training and resources in order to ensure that the process is fair.
I am not a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, but I do know enough about law to recognize that there is some equality in the system. It is true that a lawyer will brief his or her client. That will happen. However, we do not have that same ability in our

December 3, 1986
Privilege-Ms. Copps
committees. That is the danger in what is happening here. If the Prime Minister's Office, with all of its resources, is going to bring in witnesses before they are even seen by Members of the committee, that will create an unfairness in the system which will guarantee that the committees will not work. I think that is a very serious breach of the procedures of this House and the intent of our committees.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to be very careful here. The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan).


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I am not a member of the committee but I have been a Member of the House for a few years and I am chairman of a committee. I must say, without getting into the words of the formal notice of motion of privilege, that I as a Member of the House feel my privileges, in a reverse way, have been imposed upon and insulted by such a fictitious, specious motion of privilege put forward by the opposition. Never, since this new session has begun with its new rules, have I heard more of a mountain out of a molehill made by parliamentary pigmies who are trying to pervert the new parliamentary reform process.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, if Hon. Members opposite do not have more responsibility in trying to interpret these new areas of parliamentary reform-they are only provisionary rules-the sooner we get rid of them and get back to basic parliamentary order, the better it will be.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, to your credit you posed a question to the Hon. Member who just spoke which was a question I was asking myself as I listened to the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). I do not know if the Hon. Member for Hamilton East is a lawyer, but the Hon. Member for Burnaby is a lawyer and very much a member of the Committee on Justice. To suggest that a client cannot be briefed by the lawyer without tainting his evidence as suggested by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), who is also a lawyer of dubious skill, is an insult to any Parliamentarian, to any lawyer, or to anyone in the legal world-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is not absolutely certain that to call another Hon. Member a lawyer of dubious skill would come as any surprise to the general public, but it may be creating an atmosphere in which other Hon. Members are inclined to respond in like fashion. I am reminded of what Shakespeare had one of his characters say some hundreds of years ago: "The first thing we should do is let us hang all the lawyers". I am sure the Hon. Member would not want to go that far.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I understand, Mr. Speaker, and you are in the chair to exercise moderation because those of us in the common field of the House sometimes do get a little excited. I used to be a member of the profession, and as far as I am
concerned it is the last of the priesthoods and the faster it is defrocked and put back in the world of reality, the better it is.
I have not participated that much in some of these points of order, and you did denote the fact that perhaps I was not as moderate as I usually am. But, I have listened to this poppycock for an hour about a private meeting, as my hon. friend from Scarborough called it, which is totally distinct from a secret meeting. This was not a secret conclave, a cabal, a meeting under the cloak of darkness under the Peace Tower or climbing into the back door of the Langevin Building to pervert evidence before the committe. This "tainted" evidence, as it is called by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, was allegedly in documents which were changed before and after these witnesses ever appeared.
There is absolutely no question of privilege here. The Hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition, who has come through an awful traumatic weekend trying to find out where he fits on the spectrum of free trade, or on any subject, let alone as leader, can be excused for his participation this afternoon. He is a notable Member of this House and I think a Member of some repute of the bar society of the land. For him to say that certain things said by the Hon. Member for Scarborough East (Mr. Hicks) lead ipso facto to an automatic question of privilege is one of the most facetious and superficial arguments that has ever been presented in this Chamber. Unless the tone and logic of debate starts to pick up, Mr. Speaker, you might as well turn off the cameras completely because the people of Canada will be turned off completely.
Let us get back to the business of the House, which is an interesting motion dealing with the Post Office. Evidentally, members of the New Democratic Party want to filibuster on an opposition day. I used to be in opposition and when we had an opposition day we treated it as the holy of holies because we were serious about the subject. Yet this opposition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's intervention has been helpful. I think it is probably appropriate to ask Hon. Members if any can constrain themselves from entering into the debate. I now recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to relate to you an experience we had at our committee with regarding an Order in Council appointment. I think it touches on what you will be dealing with in terms of this question of privilege. While the Chair may rule that the contact between the Prime Minister's office and the witness before he appeared before committee was a breach of privilege, Your Honour might also rule that the outcome of such a contact had an impact on the effectiveness of the committee to do its job.
It is with regard to the second point that I wish to comment. A Mr. Spector, who is now a senior civil servant, appeared before our committee. He was previously assistant to the
December 3, 1986

Premier of British Columbia before he became assistant to the Prime Minister of Canada. When questioned in committee with respect to his views on public policy he would not answer.
The job of the committee is to evaluate the suitability of a candidate to perform the job to which he or she has been appointed by Order in Council. There are several basis upon which this evaluation can be made. It can be done on the basis of the number of degrees the person has, the type of work experience he or she has, or any record concerning public attitudes. The other basis upon which the evaluation can be made is with respect to the candidate's attitudes on public policy that fall within the area in which he or she will be working. The gentleman to whom I am referring was involved in the area of federal-provincial relations. This is the type of examination which would take place before the American Congress.
What I think is of interest and of relevance to this question of privilege is that the official to whom I have referred refused to answer any questions with regard to his views on public policy. This left the appearance that he had been, shall I say, coached or instructed, or at least that he had had some conversations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is reluctant to interrupt the Hon. Member. Apart from the propriety of proceeding with these remarks concerning another person in another place and in another situation, the Chair is wondering how helpful they are in terms of deciding this point. I ask the Hon. Member to ensure that his arguments, which are always helpful to the Chair, keep on the point.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I am endeavouring to keep to the point.
The point I am making is that the committee has been assigned a task. That task is to review a candidate's suitability for appointment by Order in Council to a specific position. I am suggesting that one of the basis upon which it is necessary for the committee to examine a witness is with regard to his or her attitude on public policy as it relates to the position. The experience we have had with regard to at least one such appointment was that the witness who appeared before the committee refused to answer such questions. I am suggesting to Your Honour that this had the appearance of having been done as a result of instructions from his civil service or political boss.
I suggest this is relevant in terms of Your Honour's consideration of this point. If Your Honour is dealing with the question of whether a witness has been coached or not before appearing before the committee and whether that is a breach of privilege, then the experience which I relate is relevant to Your Honour's ruling. It is something which affected our capacity to judge whether or not the person was suitable for the position. We had, shall I say, one of the legs of the threelegged stool with which we had to judge the quality of this appointment taken away.
Privilege-Ms. Copps


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate briefly in this question of privilege. I wish to touch upon what I consider to be the four key points of discussion here. First, I wish to touch on the whole concept of what we are dealing with since it is a new process. Second, I wish to deal with the business of Citation 638 of Beauchesne's, that is, the concern about tampering with witnesses. Third, I wish to talk about the concept of briefing witnesses. Fourth, I wish to talk about the role of the committee.
Dealing first with the process that is under discussion, I think it is absolutely imperative that all Members of the House understand the dangers that we are now engaging in. One of the things talked about in the McGrath Task Force was the danger of partisan activity and partisan use of committee procedures and the impact that that would have on the reforms. The reforms that we are dealing with today are extremely important to the committees and extremely important to the House of Commons. I think they are extremely important to all Canadians. This type of partisan approach to the issue and this partisan use of the rules will subvert that process and destroy any reforms that possibly have a chance of succeeding. We have to remember that they are provisional rules and that we are now in the test run. If we wish them to survive, and I am certainly one who wishes that they do, then we have to be very careful with the type of things that are being brought before the House of Commons.
My second point is with respect to Citation 638 of Beauchesne's. The whole tone of that paragraph is with respect to the concern that witnesses have been tampered with, tampered with in the sense of not appearing before the committee or being discouraged to appear; tampered with in terms of their evidence; or tampered with in terms of the type of things they will say to the committee. I think it is absolutely essential to go back to that meeting and have a look at what happened there to see if in fact any tampering went on. The impression I have as a result of conversations I have had with members of the committee is that the meeting was extremely open and frank. There was no desire on the part of any of the witnesses or on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary to deny in any way the fact that this briefing meeting took place. So there was a very open procedure. There was no impression of tampering in any way.
As experienced Members of the House will know, if they are concerned about evidence that is being put before the committee by the House, then they have the right to swear a witness. There was no request by any member of the committee to have any of the witnesses sworn. Obviously, there was a sense that the evidence coming from the witnesses was in fact relevant and had not been tampered with.
The third point with which I would like to deal concerns the idea of briefing witnesses. I find it absolutely absurd that someone would rise in the House of Commons and take the position that witnesses should not be briefed by anyone but the clerk. Anyone who has spent any time in the House of Commons, or on any of its committees, will have realized and

December 3, 1986
Privilege-Ms. Copps
witnessed personally Members of Parliament and various other people briefing witnesses before the committee, It is a totally acceptable form of behaviour. This is the type of thing that our traditions are built on, and it has gone on for a long time. It is almost laughable to find that to be a fundamental part of a point of privilege.
Citation 630 of Beauchesne's goes on to indicate that witnesses before a committee have the right to counsel. What is that, if it is not legalized and acceptable briefing in the eyes of Beauchesne?
The fourth point that I wish to touch on very quickly is the point raised by the Opposition House Leader when he stated, if I understood him correctly, that the committee has no role to play in privilege. On page 24 of Beauchesne's, paragraph 76, it
states:
Breaches of privilege in committee may be dealt with only by the House itself on report from the committee.
Now, if there had been a serious breach of privilege in the viewpoint of the Members who have raised this before the House, I would suggest to you that their first obligation would be to raise that point of privilege at the place of the so-called crime, which would have been in the committee. The committee would then hear the arguments, the chairman would then hear the arguments and rule whether it was a case of privilege, and then the committee would report accordingly to the House of Commons. That never happened. That proves the point at which I began, that really what we are engaged in here is not a point of privilege but a partisan exercise which undermines the role of committees, and has certainly taken up a good deal of the time of the opposition debate in the House of Commons today.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add two or three comments to what I believe is a very useful debate. I am pleased that we are having it today. Hopefully, as a result of your ruling, this type of debate and topic will not be raised again in the House.
The comments of my hon. friend, the Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper), were thoughtful comments, particularly on the perceived partisan nature of this activity that is being debated here today. As the Hon. Member has indicated, the new provisional rules are very much appreciated by all Members of the House. They certainly have added a new dimension for those people who receive appointments to various boards and other organizations associated with the federal Government.
From the role I played, particularly on the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs when various officials who had received a government appointment were before that committee, I recall that they were in attendance with absolutely no briefing or no coaching of any type. As a matter of fact, on a number of occasions I recall individuals stating that they had literally got off the plane and walked into
the committee room, and were not even certain of the procedures, or what types of questions would be put to them. Nevertheless, in a non-partisan way the appropriate questions were put from all sides of the committee table. By and large, I think people felt that a complete and appropriate vetting had taken place.
One of the questions, Mr. Speaker, that you must look at is this. These individuals were appointed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), which is quite appropriate. The information that we have is that when they arrived they had been summoned by the Prime Minister's Office, not by the Minister of Justice's office, not by the clerk of the appropriate committee, not by Members of Parliament from their appropriate or respective constituent, but by the Prime Minister's Office.
The question that must be asked is why would the Prime Minister's Office, of all offices, want to contact these individuals for briefing, or coaching, or providing certain types of information or advice on how to approach the committee. That is the critical question. If there is any political involvement, if there is any partisan aspect of this discussion, surely to goodness that is it. The question is why does the Prime Minister's Office involve itself in a matter that was strictly that of the committee? If any part of the Cabinet should be involved, Mr. Speaker, certainly it should be the Minister of Justice who ought to have been involved in terms of concern that the individuals coming before the appropriate committee within his jurisdiction would receive at least a briefing on the rules, regulations and procedures of that committee.
I submit to you that we also are concerned about the possible partisan involvement in this particular discussion. But I say it is the involvement of the Prime Minister's Office where the partisan nature becomes a reality.


Mr. Francois Gerin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I was involved in the questions raised by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), and since they had received an explanation last night, I find it hard to understand their present approach.
First of all, I would like to make it clear that the meeting held yesterday morning was not a secret one in any respect. There was no secret about the number of people who attended the meeting, about who was invited, or about where the meeting was held, and I may add that when a witness was unable to name the people who were present, I immediately agreed to give the Committee the requested information, without any reservations. So it was not exactly what you would call a secret meeting.
Furthermore, and here it becomes a matter of personal privilege as a Member of this House, 1 may not have many years of experience in the House, and my English may not be perfect, but when I heard the word "tampering", I sent for a
December 3, 1986

French-English dictionary and an English dictionary, to check the meaning. In the English dictionary, the word "tamper" is defined as follows:
To alter, corrupt, pervert-
And that was never, not in any way, either directly or indirectly or otherwise, the case.
Yesterday, I told the Hon. Member for Hamilton East that I could not accept the allegations she was making. Considering the personalities of the two Members, and I have come to realize in the two years I have been here-


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's imputing motives.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He is speaking on a point of privilege.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He's impugning the integrity. He cannot comment on someone's character.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to say to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) that we are in the midst of a point of privilege. I will hear the Hon. Member at the appropriate time. Will the Hon. Member for Megantic- Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) please continue.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I have come to realize in the past two years that they often get carried away. This time I am willing to forgive and forget, but I have to say this will be the last time.
In fact, once they had been advised the meeting had taken place, the two Members had an opportunity to ask the witnesses who were present at the meeting all the relevant questions, and no one cast any doubts on the good faith or the actual testimony of these people.
So what I find particularly distressing is that today, after having had this opportunity to ask these questions, they say there has been a case of tampering, as they say in English. There was no tampering.
It is extremely distressing, because in addition to attacking me, Mr. Speaker, they are also attacking people who have been appointed to the Human Rights Tribunal, distinguished Canadians with extremely high professional qualifications. In fact, I was surprised to see how qualified some of these people are.
And today, they are being accused of having submitted to "tampering". That we cannot accept, Mr. Speaker.
In concluding, I would like to say that if the two Members want to pursue the issue, let them make a clear and specific charge, and in that case, there are other rules in the House that may apply. However, they will then have to suffer the consequences of having made unfounded charges.
Privilege-Ms. Copps


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, with respect, we who have been around the House for some time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I could interrupt the Hon. Member; I know he will graciously agree. I think the Chair has heard the issue fully. If it would please the House, the Chair would prefer the Hon. Member for Lethbridge- Foothills (Mr. Thacker) to be the last speaker on the issue.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, we know from history how serious is a breach of privilege question. If someone tries to block any Hon. Member from getting into the House to perform his or her duty or to give a speech, that is a true question of privilege, perhaps the only one.
A question of privilege has been raised over some conduct on a committee. There has been no allegation that the rights of Members to question have been interfered with or that any questions were prohibited. There is no doubt that that would be a question of privilege, but not the events of today.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has not been in the House since making his speech. I will tell the House where he has been-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must ask all Hon. Members to respect the custom of the House-and it is an ancient and honourable tradition-that we do not comment in the House on whether or not a Member is in his or her place. All Hon. Members know that there are pressing duties on Members of Parliament. People are often visiting them, and Hon. Members must go to other places. I hope all Hon. Members would agree with the Chair that we should be very careful not to comment upon the absence of any Member from the Chamber. The absence of a Member one day is coupled with the absence of another Hon. Member another day. Given the press of obligations and duties which all Hon. Members owe to their constituents and to the country, continual attendance in the Chamber is sometimes very difficult. I know the Hon. Member would agree that the better course is not to make reference to the absence of a Member. I know the Hon. Member would want to support the Chair in that regard.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I remind you of the judicial principle in a court of equity, the court you are operating in today-when one comes into a court of equity, one must have clean hands.
What about the rights of the witnesses? It will be a frosty Friday before I will agree to the extension of these rules. Thousands of citizens across the land give hundreds and hundreds of hours each year out of their lives to make Canada the civilized country it is. We put in place a temporary process so that they could be quizzed on their qualifications. They have fundamental rights. They have the fundamental right to privacy. Another right is to belong to a political Party.

December 3, 1986
Tabling of Documents
I have attended appointment hearings, and the very first question raised by members of the Opposition is about membership of a political Party. We know what members of the Opposition are trying to achieve. They are trying to build up a record so that they can rise in the House and say that only Conservatives were appointed. Particularly in respect of human rights, I know of several members of the Conservative Party who in the past wanted to serve on human rights tribunals but were never permitted to do so, even though they had distinguished careers in the area. They were never permitted to serve because they were members of our Party. There is a small group of human rights people who feel that unless we adopt its narrow view, we are no longer qualified. That is what they are trying to do, and that is fundamentally wrong.
I think, Mr. Speaker, you could take it as judicial notice that a question of privilege must be a most serious matter. This question of privilege does not qualify, as the vast majority of applications do not qualify. It is simply an attempt to discredit the Government in any way possible. It is unfair to the people who have given of their time to stand for public office. I submit that it should be dismissed out of hand for that reason alone.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is the general disposition of the House, I think this is the appropriate place to move on to another proceeding. I want to say to the Hon. Member for Burnaby and to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East that I will consider very carefully their representations. I say to all other Hon. Members that the Chair will give the matter full consideration.
Also I say to them something about which some Hon. Members with a lot of experience in the House may be wondering, that is, why the debate has gone on as long as it has. It has gone on as long as it has because, in the opinion of the Chair, when all Hon. Members agree upon parliamentary reforms-and clearly the whole process we are discussing is one of those reforms-it takes a while for them to find out how to make a new approach work. I hope the discussion which has taken place today will assist Hon. Members in making the system work.
The Chair will look very carefully at the evidence which has been given here and at the comments of all Hon. Members. I say to all Hon. Members who have contributed to the discussion this afternoon that the Chair is grateful for their interventions. It is to be hoped that the Chair can make a ruling on the matter which will assist the House to continue in the spirit of reform, and at the same time have appropriate consideration for the sensibilities of witnesses who are called in front of commmittees of the House. The Chair will endeavour to deal with the matter in an appropriate way. Again I thank all Hon. Members for their interventions. If it is the disposition of the House, the Chair would now want to move on to other matters.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 67(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, two copies of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Unemployment Insurance.


LAW REFORM COMMISSION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, report No. 30 of the Law Reform Commission of Canada entitled "Recodifying Criminal Law", Volume I.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we have just tabled in the House the Summary of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Unemployment Insurance.

I want to thank the commissioners for their efforts on what is acknowledged by everyone to be a complex issue. We regret that the commissioners were unable to present a consensus report.
I am tabling the report of the commission which includes a minority report of two commissioners and supplementary statements by four commissioners.

Over the past few years the Macdonald Commission, the Newfoundland House Commission and others have analyzed the unemployment insurance system. The recommendations flowing from these various studies do not necessarily reach a consensus.
The Government does not endorse the Forget report nor any other, and it will not respond directly and specifically to the Forget report recommendations. However these reports will be used as background papers whenever the Government undertakes a study of the unemployment insurance question.
December 3, 1986

Admittedly the present unemployment insurance system does call for changes. As stated in the 1985 Budget, our aim is to improve and simplify the unemployment insurance program, to make it more equitable and ensure that it paves the way for labour market employment opportunities.
I want to emphasize, as did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his Budget of May, 1985, that our purpose is not to reduce federal contributions to the unemployed. The main objective of unemployment insurance will always be to provide temporary income protection for unemployed workers. The unemployment insurance program should also be able to enhance work incentives and prospects for long-lasting and productive employment.

The Government will listen to the views expressed as a result of the publication of these studies. Mr. Speaker, I now commit myself to appear before the House, by May 15, 1987 at the latest, to unveil the Government's proposals.

Finally with respect to the issue of pension regulations, I will be announcing the Government's decision before Christmas. Better than that, Mr. Speaker, I will be back to the House this Friday.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, finally we have the Forget Commission Report, eight months late, nearly $3 million over cost and with two dissenting reports representing the views of three of the six commissioners, a commission wrought with divisions and leaks.
I want to remind the House again that the cost of this commission amounting to $6.8 million was paid out of the unemployment insurance benefit fund, for the benefit of unemployed workers instead of being paid out of general revenue. This in my opinion is illegal and it will be further challenged.
I was disappointed that the Minister had so little to say about the report today. After all these months, he had nothing to say about any of the recommendations in the report. While we in the Liberal Party believe that there are some imperfections in the unemployment insurance system and they should be corrected, there are some good recommendations in the report but some recommendations should be rejected immediately. First, the recommendation to abolish the extending of benefits in the regions to be replaced by some vague earning supplement system. You do not replace a specific program that helps workers when they are unemployed by a vague pie-in-the-sky proposal.
The second recommendation that should be rejected immediately is the one to annualize the benefits in order to calculate their amounts. Under this system we will very seriously hurt workers who are unemployed, especially
Statements by Ministers
seasonal workers who are not able to work for long periods of time. We must recognize that we live in a country that is basically a resource-based economy, a country with severe winters having many workers working on a seasonal basis. This proposal is completely unacceptable and should be rejected.
Finally, Recommendation No. 33 to do away with benefits for fishermen should be rejected immediately. It is proposing the abolition of a specific benefit for fishermen, a fair benefit, for something that is very vague. There are other recommendations that should be questioned but I will not comment on them today. We strongly support part of Recommendation No. 26, Mr. Speaker recommending that those cuts in unemployment insurance, where there were early retirement pensions, be rescinded as of January 5, 1986. I am pleased to see the Minister will be in the House on Friday to give the Government's response to that recommendation. One wonders why those cuts were made at all and why we had to wait. Those cuts caused a lot of concern and hardship to workers all over the country.
Finally, the Minister has not indicated the process we should go through. He says he will listen to the debate on the report as it is discussed across the country. Will this be referred to a committee? Will there be a federal-provincial conference? The report impacts on the provinces, especially by cutting back on unemployment insurance benefits because more people will be thrown into the welfare system. The Minister does not put forward any ideas for discussion in this respect. The report is filled with the philosophy of the Fraser Institute, namely, that if you make people starve they will find a job. That is no way to deal with human beings. The hidden agenda in this report is to save money in order to cut the deficit. Three billion dollars will be saved. There is no response from the Government as to what will be done with that $3 billion.
Unemployment insurance is important not only for those legitimately out of work but also for the economy by maintaining purchasing power.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, finally the day has arrived for the Forget Commission Report. The Minister has had it since Friday. I want to take up where the Minister left off in his statement. He says that the Government will listen to the public debate that will follow the study. We have had the debate, Mr. Speaker. Over 475 briefs were presented to the Forget Commission. Where has the Minister been? The debate has taken place, Mr. Minister. What we are now concerning ourselves with is the Draconian recommendations contained in the report. To cut $3 billion from the unemployment insurance fund is the mandate the Government gave the Forget Commission. Where did Mr. Forget cut the $3 billion? He cut from regional extended benefits with a system of annualization that will cost the Atlantic region $640 million in direct transfer payments of UIC. It will cost Quebec $1 billion and it will cost the west $500 million.
This is the Government that parades around as the great unifier of Canada, the great reconciliator. It is not enough for

December 3, 1986
Committee Reports
the Minister. I can understand why his statement was so brief, he would rather cut bait than fish. I do not blame him because he cannot win an election with these Draconian proposals of Mr. Forget. We have the spectacle of Mr. Forget and his commissioners having been paid $750 a day plus expenses affecting 78 per cent of those who collect unemployment insurance, over 50 per cent of whom will get less than $100 if you put the annualization into effect.
Isn't it great that the rich on $750 a day can say to the unemployed in Atlantic Canada, in Quebec and in the West: "You are getting too much in unemployment insurance"? That $3 billion neatly removes from the Government any responsibility for unemployment. What it says to the people of the country, to the unemployed and to the regions is, "You are responsible for your own unemployment, not the Government". This completely absolves the Government of any responsibility for regional strategies to create employment.
Mr. Forget also recommends setting up a Crown corporation. The UIC will be a Crown corporation supported strictly by contributions from employer and employee. We have a model of a Crown corporation, namely, the Post Office. The ultimate irony, to rub salt into the wounds, is to say to the people who pay their contributions to the unemployment insurance fund that they have to pay $7 for the Forget Commission study. You should be ashamed of yourselves over there.


PRAIRIE GRAIN ADVANCE PAYMENTS ACT
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, without amendment, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]


PETITIONS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I wish to table a petition which has been certified correct as to form and content by the Clerk of Petitions. The petition is from residents of the Thunder Bay area who are asking that the Government of Canada abandon the current proposals for the Patent Act legislation. They want Parliament to reject these proposals which they believe will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.
I have a second petition, certified correct as to form and content under Standing Order 106, from residents in the area of Churchill, Manitoba. They believe the Patent Act proposals put forward by the federal Government will result in higher costs to provincial government drug plans and consumers.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a petition certified correct under Standing Order 106. It is signed by many residents of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. My seat-mate knows that area very well. It calls upon Parliament to reject the proposed changes to the Patent Act which they say will increase prices for Canadians and they will suffer as a result.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present on behalf of the Pinetree Heritage Club Inc. of Christopher Lake, Saskatchewan, a petition they forwarded to me. They feel the proposal to change the Patent Act will end up increasing the price of drugs and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals. They go on to say that these increases will affect all of them in their age group.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition signed by several people from Vancouver and the Lower Mainland of British Columbia who object to the Government's attempt to tamper with the Patent Act. They say this will result in greatly increased prices for drugs for ordinary Canadians. They call upon Parliament to reject these proposals.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to introduce a petition which has been declared in order by the Clerk of Petitions. It is from a number of people in British Columbia, places like Nelson, Trail, Castlegar, Rossland, Salmo and so on. They are all concerned about the Government's proposed legislation which would in their opinion cause drug prices to be increased unnecessarily and cause great hardship to a number of Canadians, particularly senior citizens. They feel this is a concession to pressure from the multinationals based in the U.S. and they ask Parliament to reject the Government's proposals.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I have another petition from many people in Spadina and other parts of Toronto. It refers to the action taken by Canada Post in removing one-third of the mailboxes from the City of Toronto in recent weeks without consultation with the people concerned. They feel this will cause great inconvenience and even hardship, particularly for the elderly or young children who may be mailing letters. They ask Parliament to ensure that Canada Post replaces the mailboxes and does not take them away again without first consulting with the people concerned.
December 3, 1986


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I also have a petition, found in order by the Clerk of Petitions, from a large number of people in Spadina who are concerned about the Government's proposal to increase low-level flight training out of Goose Bay, Labrador. They point out that this training already disrupts the life of native people. They are also of the opinion that it does not promote peace but makes war more likely. They ask Parliament to ensure that the Government stops that activity and not try to establish a NATO base there.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106. It has been certified correct as to form and content. Like every other petition I have presented on this issue, it has not been verified by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazan-kowski) and does not need to be verified by him even though on one occasion he sought that authority for himself. That authority was not granted him by the Chair or by the NDP caucus.
I might say just a word about the petition itself. The petitioners protest the federal Government's proposals to change the Patent Act concerning prescription drugs. These proposals will increase drug prices despite what the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) says. It would severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. It would unfairly hurt those whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis and most certainly result in higher costs to provincial government drug plans. These changes are another example, unfortunately, of Canadian government concessions to the U.S. at the expense of average Canadians.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by some 50 to 60 people from the Province of Quebec. All these petitioners submit that the Canadian Government proposal to amend the Patents Act will cause hardship for Canadian men and women, because the legislation will increase the price of drugs in this country, a hardship for senior citizens, sick persons, etc. here in Canada.
They also submit, Mr. Speaker, that this Government legislation will cause hardship to the provinces because there will be cost increases where provincial health care programs are concerned.
They also submit that the proposed amendments are another example of concessions made by the federal Government to the United States with respect to the free trade negotiations.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, they suggest to us, Members of Parliament, and I quote: "For those reasons, they humbly pray that Parliament will reject those proposals that would increase the price of drugs for Canadian men and women."
Petitions


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. One is from residents of Thompson, Manitoba, who believe that the Government's proposals to amend the Patent Act will result in higher costs to provincial drug plans. They humbly pray that Parliament will reject these proposals.
I have another petition from an organization calling itself Senior Power. I am assured that thousands more of these are on their way. Senior Power from Regina humbly prays that Parliament reject the Government's proposals to amend the Patent Act pertaining to drugs. They, too, believe it will mean increased costs for them and for a very good provincial drug plan in Saskatchewan.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, 1 have two petitions, the first one concerning the Patents Act. More specifically, drug patents will increase the price of drugs to Canadian consumers. Also, the admendments will affect mainly people with health conditions requiring constant medication. Those proposals will mean cost increases for provincial health programs. Those proposals also are another example of concessions made by the Canadian Government to the United States with respect to the free trade negotiations.
For those reasons, your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament will reject those proposals that would increase the price of drugs for Canadian men and women.
The second petition says that the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act as it relates to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers, that these changes will hurt Canadians who must rely on drug treatment on an ongoing basis, and that these changes will result in increased costs for provincial government drug programs. It states further that these increases are an example of the federal Government giving in to American interests in the free trade negotiations. The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament and the Government to withdraw the amendments which the Government is seeking to put before the House.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have petitions which have been certified by the Clerk to be correct as to form and content. It is my pleasure to present the first petition from residents of the Province of Manitoba, primarily of Winnipeg, who protest the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act as it relates to prescription drugs. They state that this will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They point out that this will unfairly hurt Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. They also state that the proposals will produce higher costs for provincial government drug plans. They therefore call

December 3, 1986
Petitions
upon Parliament to reject proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of Atlantic Canada who state that the National Association of Japanese Canadians is the only elected national organization of Japanese Canadians. It is comprised of representatives from 15 centres across Canada. The petition points out that the National Association of Japanese Canadians has held public meetings on redress for the forcible dispossession and relocation of Japanese Canadians suffered during World War II and that the NAJC is the only organization which has used a national questionnaire to obtain grassroots advice in developing a position on a proper redress for the dispossession and relocation during the Second World War. Since this organization has full support, not only of Japanese Canadians but of members of many national ethnic and service organizations, they call upon Parliament to urge the Government to enter into negotiations immediately with the National Association of Japanese Canadians.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition which has been certified as correct in its form under Standing Order 106 as signified by the signature of the Clerk of Petitions. This petition comes from my constituents in the City of Windsor who are availing themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to express a grievance with the assurance that this House will provide a remedy. They protest the Government's intention to enact a Bill which would result in an increase in drug prices. I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, would understand that that would cause an increase and financial strain for many Canadians, those particularly-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. With the scientific training of the Hon. Member, could I ask him to be more concise.


Cyril Keeper: He means faster.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be more concise. This petition cites the increased costs likely to result to federal, provincial and private drug plans. With the typical insight which characterizes the people of Windsor, they identify this prospective legislation with concessions by the Government in order to facilitate the free trade talks with the United States. Mr. Speaker, they demand the Bill's withdrawal.


Mr. Holtmann:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. From hearing the Member present his petition it is quite obvious that he is trying to stall for as much time as possible-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: That's not a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It was my understanding that the Member had completed presenting his petition.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians from Nova Scotia and western Canada. The petitioners are attempting to bring to the Government's attention the fact that its proposed changes to the Patent Act as it relates to prescription drugs will increase drug prices significantly. The petitioners are asking the Government to reconsider. In light of this, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell):
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition which, pursuant to Standing Order 106, has been


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6 p.m., the proceedings on the motion before the House have lapsed and pursuant to Standing Order 9(1), the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, December 4, 1986