1986-05-14

[Stage Direction]
the removal of special tariff concessions on steel imports from such countries as South Korea, Brazil, and Argentina.

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Today, Mr. Speaker, over 1,000 elderly Canadians demonstrated on Parliament Hill to defend their rights. Once again, unfortunately, they were forced to protest against the Conservative Government's decision to deprive 34,000 Canadians of the unemployment insurance benefits for which they have paid.
Mr. Speaker, these 1,000 Canadians are not alone: more than 5,000 others from all ridings throughout Canada have signed petitions to denounce this measure.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, a Conservative Member crossed the floor today because he can no longer accept the policies of this Government. I hope Quebec Members will wake up instead of walking out one after another, and urge the Minister to reconsider this decision which is unfair to Canadian early retirees.
* *
*



No other major trading bloc extends such preferential tariffs on steel. Canadian steel exports are threatened in the United States while foreign-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in this day and age of rampant international terrorism, we as parliamentarians must take every precaution to protect the Canadian people. Our peace-loving nation is an integral cog in the wheels of the world and, therefore, our own airport security is of paramount importance.
Before Parliament, I advocate the mating of two government Departments in the interest of public safety. The transportation and national defence sectors of the Government would do well to join forces toward securing Canadian airports from certain undesirable factions circulating freely around the globe. Our highly trained Armed Forces personnel should be placed visibly inside our international airports as is the case throughout Europe and points beyond.


STEEL EXPORTS AND IMPORTS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, by early June of this year the International Trade Commission in Washington will rule on whether Canadian steel products are being dumped into the United States. This ruling can affect all steel producers in Canada and particularly inflict serious harm on Ipsco Steel of Regina.
What Ipsco and its workers need is the public support of the Government in the fight against the growing tide of American protectionism. Just as important, the Government has to become proactive rather than reactive when it comes to the importation of steel products from such countries as South Korea. Both union and management of Ipsco have endorsed the following actions to be implemented by the Government; first, more thorough monitoring of steel imports into Canada, second, tightening the inspection of steel imports and, third,
We are not a threatening people, but we must use the suggestion of force to deter terrorists who use their political beliefs to bludgeon justice on a world-wide scale. We must be quickly convinced our airport security is sadly inadequate, and right the situation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


PETRO-CANADA PRICE OF GASOLINE
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my constituents continue to be disappointed that oil companies are not passing on the savings in world oil prices to consumers.

May 14, 1986
Unfortunately, there is a very real lack of competition in the market-place. Prices rise, and sometimes fall, in unison and without explanation. Where is the consumers' power to regulate the market-place if in fact they have no real choice? Perhaps there are indeed too few genuine competitors as a result of recent takeovers.
Perhaps some of the problem lies with Petro-Canada which seems to follow the market when there is a downward trend but, according to reports, leads the market when there is an upward trend. Many of my constituents believe that the time has come for the Government to get rid of Petro-Canada. They believe an aggressive investor-owned company would mean more genuine competition in the market-place and hence lower gas prices.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are some 374 nuclear reactors in the world in 26 different nations. The International Atomic Energy Agency has virtually no muscle or power to implement safety measures in order to protect human health. Recent events require intervention on a global scale in order to protect human health from any possibility of similar incidents occurring.
Therefore, I once again call on the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to take an initiative in the name of Canada, and all the 26 nations which have nuclear reactors within their boundaries, to establish, first, international standards-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, the gears in the market-place are really turning now because interest rates are going down fast. While low interest rates make the economy work, they are also a sign that people have confidence in the Government and in the productivity of their investments. The previous Liberal Government policies were responsible for a prime business rate of almost 23 per cent in 1981. When you compare that to a current prime rate of 10.5 per cent, it is obvious that the Conservative economic agenda is right on target.
There is now no reason for home owners to give up their homes because of unaffordable mortgage payments. Rates of
over 20 per cent under the Liberals have now fallen to close to 10 per cent, and are still dropping steadily.
While the central bank rate has been going down, it is clear that the chartered banks do not want to pass this on to borrowers as quickly as they pass on increases. Consumer and business credit markets depend on a competitive environment and the Government should take steps to see that our banks pass on these decreases and not skim off added profits at the expense of Canadians.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has decided that part of its famous "jobs, jobs, jobs" strategy will be to cut funding for summer students who could be hired by many non-profit groups which in previous years qualified for job creation money. Over 60 non-profit organizations in Toronto, which received wage subsidies under the Challenge '85 Program last year, will not get funding this year. Planning for programs and services those agencies provide has been wasted because it is too late for them to seek funding elsewhere.
What is involved is a reduction in the amount of money spent in the program and a shift from non-profit organizations, such as day camps for children, to profit-making enterprises.
According to a report in The Globe and Mail, two of the companies involved are Magna International and Bell Canada. Is this called helping those who need it least? This is just another example of the Conservatives blindly following ideology at the expense of average Canadians, in this case young workers and the recipients of the services of non-profit organizations.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, it appears obvious that many of Canada's present economic problems are related to its vast size and, in particular, to our small population. We rely on exports for our lumber, fish, mining, and agricultural products to such an extent that we often get caught in a buyer's market where we must produce below costs.
Think of the difference if we consumed most of our own resources. What we need is an influx of people such as we had
May 14, 1986


THE ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
during the early 1900s and after the two Great Wars, which were some of the boom periods in our country's economy.
We should be welcoming new Canadians at a rate per month that we permit per year.

Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to protest the price of airline tickets.
During the 1970s when the price of gasoline was quadrupling the airlines kept putting up the price of tickets and told us it was because gasoline was getting more and more expensive. Last week I checked with an airline company and found out that approximately 40 per cent of the price of a ticket goes to the cost of fuel. If gasoline prices have been falling and falling, as they have been over the last months, why have airline ticket prices not been falling as well? This is something which I protest.
I urge the airlines of Canada to pass on the savings which they are now realizing to the people who are travelling.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, 38 years ago today Jews around the world rejoiced in the creation of the State of Israel. In 1948, on the fifth day of Iyar in the Hebrew calendar, a state was created, the realization of a Zionist dream and a haven for the homeless in the tragic aftermath of the Holocaust. Today, as we celebrate Israel's Independence Day, Israel is a vibrant, beautiful state-the desert blooms.
While the past 38 years have been marked by a number of conflicts, and it has not yet been possible to achieve a lasting and just peace, the achievements made during this relatively short period of history have not only been remarkable but also have been a justifiable source of pride to Israelis and to Jews around the world.
The leaders and the people of Israel are in our prayers. May Israel continue to grow in peace. Shalom.


ALBERTA-ASSISTANCE FROM GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, for a few moments I would like to talk to Members of the House about some of the concerns of the Province of Alberta.
As most people in Canada know, we are largely a resource based economy. Right now two of our main resources are facing very serious difficulties. The first one, of course, is in the petroleum and gas sector, where prices are down, investment is slipping, and gas is soon to be deregulated, which will also result in a drop in prices.
The second resource is that of agriculture. Again we have the same problem-lower prices and a high debt ratio for many of our farmers. As a result of that, very little spending is being done by our farmers, which has had a dramatic effect on the Alberta economy.
Essentially, I would like to see the Government look at a couple of things.
First, I ask the Government to urge all Departments to get involved with provincial officials to talk about the programs which are available, and to talk about assistance which is available to put Alberta on a fast track to make the kind of decisions which are necessary to help the economy.
The second one-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has been claiming that the way to create jobs in the country is by supporting small business. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has claimed that job-creation dollars and training dollars should be geared to small business.
Mr. Speaker, you can imagine my surprise when I heard from the President of the Newfoundland Career Academy in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, yesterday, that his application to train 30 people under the Job Re-entry Program to give them entrepreneurial skills had been turned down by the federal Government. When he asked why that application had been turned down, he was advised by the Minister's official that it was because there were no entrepreneurial skills or opportunities for entrepreneurs in western Newfoundland. This kind of double-talk, on the one hand claiming that small business is important and is the backbone of the economy, and on the other telling Newfoundlanders that there are no

May 14, 1986
Oral Questions
opportunities for entrepreneurs in Newfoundland, simply will not wash.
The Government ought to get its act together, come clean with the people of Newfoundland and put its money where its mouth is. The propaganda will not carry any longer.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister assured Canadians that an inquiry into the dealings of the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion would be launched without delay. If there has been a delay, is it because the Government is having some difficulty finding someone willing to undertake the inquiry now that the Prime Minister has poisoned the atmosphere of impartiality?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the last unworthy comment made by the right hon. gentleman, if there has been any poisoning of the atmosphere, something which I refuse to believe, it has been by that kind of question that has been asked since last Monday.
The short answer to the question is that active efforts are currently under way to identify an impartial person to undertake the investigation as to facts. It is the Prime Minister's intention that the identification of the impartial person to head that investigation should get under way just as quickly as possible.


INQUIRY'S TERMS OF REFERENCE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the reason for the delay might also be that the terms of reference are proving difficult to draft. I recall to the Deputy Prime Minister that the Prime Minister said in the House on September 9 that any such inquiry should deal simply with the facts. Is the Government attempting to draft terms of reference that are so wide and that deal with the general issue of conflict of interest guidelines so as to obscure the real issue which is the conduct of the former Minister?


Erik Nielsen: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. Quite the contrary. As I have assured the House on Monday, Tuesday, and again today, the terms of reference will take into account the allegations made in the House of Commons, both temperate and intemperate. They will take into account the allegations made in the newspapers, both temperate and intemperate. They will take into account the allegations made in the electronic media, both temperate and
intemperate. It will be in the context of the conflict of interest Code of Conduct for public office holders, in addition to the Prime Minister's letter of September 9 to the former Minister and other members of his Ministry.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, you know the terms of reference will be very vague.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Why not have an inquiry before a parliamentary committee, so that the former Minister can be judged by his peers in the House, instead of a judicial inquiry that will deal with a purely political question?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question before as well. I am sure that the hon. gentleman, by his own questioning and by that of his colleagues since Monday, should recognize the fact that the atmosphere in the House and in its committees is now so bitterly partisan that it would be very difficult to apply oneself to an investigation of the facts with impartiality.
I might say that the process is nothing new. It was exposed on September 9, 1985, and indeed has been followed in the past. I remind the Right Hon. Member that this is the course that was requested-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question was short.


EXAMINATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, to be absolutely clear, the House is interested in whether or not the Minister has violated these guidelines. I ask the Acting Prime Minister for his assurance that the Government will not throw up another diversionary tactic by asking the commission also to examine the question of revisions to the guidelines and other guidelines. It is these guidelines that we allege have been violated.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am totally familiar with the allegations of the hon. gentleman, of other members of his Party, of those in the New Democratic Party, and those in the newspapers and the electronic media. I can assure him that the conflict of interest Code of Conduct which was tabled September 9, 1985, will be the code that is looked at. I would not wish, as I am sure he would not, the impartial person investigating the facts in these circumstances to confine himself to the 1985 package tabled because it may well be that the circumstances might relate to the guidelines which were in place under the former Government, and which were in place until September, 1985, so there are two there.
May 14, 1986


INVESTIGATION OF MINISTER'S CONDUCT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I accept the point just made by the Acting Prime Minister, and I agree with it. The allegations are part of the case, but when a cloud is thrown, as it has been thrown, over the conduct of a Minister, will the inquiry be free to examine all the conduct of the Minister, the appointments he has made and the decisions he has made as a Minister, which may have been affected by the conflict of interest we have put forward in the House?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I think I have made it abundantly clear. I have said that I would expect the terms of reference to include all the allegations which have been made in the House by himself and others in the Opposition, all the newspaper allegations, and all the electronic media allegations. They have covered such broad ground that I cannot really imagine how an impartial person investigating the facts would fail to take into account all of the wide range of allegations which have been made.


INQUIRY'S FINDINGS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary questions are on the same subject matter. In the past couple of days the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated, with reference to the letter of September 9 to Members of Parliament and Senators, that there would be an impartial inquiry into the facts. I think he used that phrase 14 times two days ago. He also indicated that factual allegations coming from this side of the House, the media and so on, will be considered. One thing he has not told us is if the inquiry will make a judgment on whether or not there has been, in the opinion of the inquirer, a conflict of interest. Is that part of the mandate?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party describes as fact allegations which he and others in the Opposition have been making. Surely the task of the impartial investigation is to establish what is fact and what is not, if there is any factual substance to the allegations which have been made. That, I would expect, would be totally open to the impartial investigation process by the impartial person to conduct it when that person is identified and named.


MANDATE OF INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will go back and ask the question again, and maybe I will get an answer. Will the Deputy Prime Minister answer the question? In terms of the mandate being given to this inquiry, will Members of Parliament, or whoever will see the recommendation when it comes, have the following question answered by the inquiry: was there or was there not a conflict of interest? Is a judgment to be passed as part of the mandate requirement for the inquiry?
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: Well, of course, Mr. Speaker, that would be the purpose-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: They say "Oh, oh!" That is the whole-


Simon Leendert de Jong: Is it so hard to say yes or no?


Erik Nielsen: The whole purpose of the impartial investigation of the facts in the context of the conflict of interest code applicable to public office holders is to determine whether or not there has been a breach, as has been alleged so many times, real or apparent.


ROLE OF PARLIAMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, that is the first time the Deputy Prime Minister has said he is going to make a judgment on whether or not there has been a conflict of interest. The Deputy Prime Minister is shaking his head. Is he aware that by going outside Parliament for an inquiry of this kind to make a judgment about conflict of interest he is, in fact, going outside the terms of reference of the letter from the Prime Minister of September 9 that makes no such reference, and is he aware that he is denying the whole parliamentary tradition of having the privileges and elections committee reach such decisions, and not an outsider?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is simply untrue.


John Edward Broadbent: Which is?


Erik Nielsen: There have been instances in the past where this route has been followed. I will agree with the Member that in this instance the process that is being followed for the first time is different from past precedents, but it should come as no surprise to the Member because the possibility of that new process being invoked was tabled as part of the package last September, 1985.


John Edward Broadbent: No. Give us the reference for that.


Erik Nielsen: It certainly was. That is the process being invoked now.


GUIDELINES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In his answer to the previous question, he indicated to the House for the first time that this impartial person conducting the investigation will decide if there has been a breach of the guidelines. I wish I had before me the letter sent by the Prime Minister on September 9 in which he said that he had no intention of delegating his responsibility, and that the ultimate

May 14, 1986
Oral Questions
responsibility for deciding whether someone had infringed the guidelines was his.
How come the Government's policy has changed?


Erik Nielsen: It has not
changed whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. I thought it would have been apparent to even a simpleton that the impartial investigation would have to be done in the context of the conflict of interest code, all of its provisions, which among others provides for avoiding any breach or apparent breach. In addition, I have told the House repeatedly that the letter of the Prime Minister to each of his Ministers tabled on September 9, 1985, will be part of those terms of reference. I do not know how I can make it any clearer.


OBJECT OF INQUIRY
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister could considerably clarify the situation, something he seems to have trouble doing, by giving the House the assurance that this so-called independent and impartial inquiry will consider only one main question, namely whether or not the guidelines were breached, because at the rate the Deputy Prime Minister is using this inquiry as a catch-all for any number of items, it will be utter confusion and no one will know what is going on. Please give us the assurance that only the main question will be considered for a decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Too long, much too long.


Jacques Guilbault: Let us know whether or not the guidelines were breached.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, for two and a half weeks now they have covered a broad gamut of allegations. Now they seem to be requesting me to ensure somehow that we confine the inquiry instead of addressing all of the allegations that have come forward.


Mr. Gauthier:: We want an inquiry here.


Erik Nielsen: It seems to me, Sir, that what they wish to do now is to undermine the credibility of an impartial person before he is identified, or she, and before their appointment and before the terms of reference have even been set. That is impartiality, I ask you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is Hon. Members' time. The Hon. Member for Regina West.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transport told us that he investigated the companies involved with the recent award to supply security services at Montreal airports. He said he was aware of who owned the company that would replace Burns Security which backed out of its contract while its employees were on strike.
Is the Minister aware that this new company, which has received a $1 million contract, is not even two weeks old and is not even a licensed security agency in any province? Is the company bonded? Is it insured? Is this increasing the standards of airport security? Under whose licence will it be operating?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House yesterday, there are two firms to which Air Canada has turned over the security service as a result of Burns Security's desire to remove itself. The two firms in question were taking over the existing contract which was originally awarded to Burns.
I am still checking out more of the details. There have been further revelations in the press which I am going to check out. I will certainly make that information available to the Hon. Member and the House as soon as I can ascertain the details and the answers to the questions which have been posed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina West may ask one supplementary question.


PARENT COMPANY INQUIRY
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell us if this new company is a front intending to operate under a licence held by another company which is owned in part by the wife of a cabinet Minister? Why did these people get a $1 million contract as their first job before they were even licensed? Why does the parent company hold contracts for Regina, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg? Is there not a conflict of interest here, too?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of allegations contained in the Hon. Member's question to which I am certainly not going to subscribe without checking out the facts. My understanding is that some of the contracts which were awarded in the western region of Canada were awarded in March of 1986.
With regard to the allegation with respect to the Hon. Senator's wife, the Senator made a statement in the Senate yesterday clarifying that position. I am sure that, in the interest of ensuring that there is not or does not seem to be a conflict of interest, the Hon. Senator has taken the right steps.
May 14, 1986


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NEW ZEALAND MINISTER OFTHE ENVIRONMENT AND MINISTER OF HOUSING
Mr. Speaker:: May I draw to the attention of Members the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Phil Goff, Minister of the Environment and Minister of Housing for New Zealand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF INDONESIAN MINISTER OF TRADE
Mr. Speaker:: 1 would also like to draw to the attention of the House the presence of Dr. Rachmat Saleh, the Minister of Trade for Indonesia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In the September 9, 1985, letter to MPs it says: "-circumstances may arise that call for an impartial investigation of conduct as it pertains to fact." It says further that: "-making use of these instruments will not relieve the Government of its responsibility to decide and to stand accountable before Parliament".
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us today what made him and the Prime Minister change their minds as to that particular sentence in the declaration of September 9, 1985?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that misquoted portion of the letter to which the hon. gentleman has just referred. When he was quoting the letter, he inserted words which are not in the letter in the order which he has outlined.


Don Boudria: Oh, yeah? Which ones?


Erik Nielsen: There has been no change of policy. The open letter to Members and Senators from the Prime Minister provided that there may be circumstances which would require the appointment of an impartial person to conduct an investigation as to facts. If the hon. gentleman reviews the "blues", he will see that he inserted words which were not in that letter.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT DOES NOT PERMIT STANDING
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not the case, and as my supplementary, since in the same letter the Prime Minister says that the responsibility
Oral Questions
for the standards of conduct of the federal Government and Cabinet lies ultimately with the Prime Minister, I would like to ask whether the Prime Minister has also dissociated himself from this part of his letter? If not, why won't he let the House, through the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedures, investigate this question and draw its own conclusions instead of having a so-called independent enquirer who, as far as we and most people can see, will try to cover up the truth?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the allegation imbedded in the question of the hon. gentleman is utterly false. The Prime Minister fully stands by the conflict of interest code which was tabled in September, 1985. He fully stands by the letter of September 9 to his Ministers. He fully stands by the open letter to Members and Senators, which was tabled as part of the package, and every other part of the conflict of interest package which was tabled in September, 1985.


Don Boudria: Why are you not doing it?


Erik Nielsen: He says: "Why are you not doing it?" The Prime Minister is doing it as quickly as possible. An impartial person will be identified as quickly as possible. The investigation will proceed as quickly as possible. It will report as quickly as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PRIME MINISTER'S LETTER
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that the Prime Minister fully stands by his letter. I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to explain to me and to the House where in the letter there is reference to the right of an independent investigator to find that there is or is not a conflict of interest.


Jacques Guilbault: That's a new addendum to the letter.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, surely the purpose of the investigation as to facts would be-


John Edward Broadbent: That's not the question.


Erik Nielsen: -to see whether or not there was an actual or apparent breach of the Code of Conduct. I cannot put it more simply or clearly than that-


John Edward Broadbent: Or inaccurately.


Erik Nielsen: It is not inaccurate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Sure it is.


Erik Nielsen: -as being the role of an impartial investigation as to facts. It must do two things: one, investigate; two, report.

May 14, 1986
13264_______________________________________
Oral Questions


RESPONSIBILITY OF PARLIAMENT
Ian Deans: Does the Deputy Prime Minister understand that in the letter it says that: "- circumstances may arise that call for an impartial person to conduct an investigation as to fact"? It goes no further than that. Is he not aware that the Prime Minister also goes on to say that the "-responsibility of government and the supremacy of Parliament are respected and reinforced", and that that supremacy and responsibility require that Parliament make the judgment as to ethical standards of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. gentleman knew the system and this place better than that.


Ian Deans: I know it very well.


Erik Nielsen: He is omitting to say that, in addition to the code that will be looked at by an impartial person investigating the facts, are the letter of September 9, and all of the allegations that have been made over the course of at least two and a half weeks. With respect to the point about Parliament, the Hon. Member will appreciate that the option is there for the report to be referred to a standing committee of this House.


Ian Deans: Where is the option?


Erik Nielsen: The hon. gentleman says "Where is the option?" It is inherent in the prerogative of the Prime Minister which we are dealing with here.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: It's in invisible ink.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
This morning, more than 1,000 senior citizens were on Parliament Hill to protest the decision made by the Minister on January 5 to cut unemployment insurance benefits. Is the Minister willing to admit today that these people have been unfairly penalized, especially since, this morning, some people proved to us that their unemployment insurance benefits were now down to only $12 a week? Is the Minister prepared to withdraw a retroactive measure that affects 34,000 people?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to meet the leaders of this group at noon, and we discussed their concerns. As you know, I have received a number of representations
from various groups on the same subject. That is why I have asked Mr. Forget to look into the details of this question and give me his recommendations.


INQUIRY WHY MINISTER DID NOT AWAIT FORGET COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION BEFORE MAKING DECISION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, we have this stupid reply from the Minister, while the people up there are losing 200-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Just the question!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister realize that the people who are here today are losing $200 a month in income? Why did the Minister ask the Forget Commission's advice and cut unemployment insurance cheques? Why didn't she ask for a decision by the Forget Commission but let these people draw their cheques?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to these regulations were announced by the Minister of Finance in 1984, and as we all know, since that time we have debated the question here in the House and I am now waiting for Mr. Forget's recommendations.


REDUCTION IN BENEFITS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and it is prompted by today's demonstration by thousands of people on Parliament Hill.
Can the Minister explain why the Government continues to deny unemployment insurance benefits to pensioners in spite of the fact that, since early January, this Government policy has been rejected in practically all 400 appeals filed in Quebec against such cut-backs?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, a number of appeals have been heard by boards of referees. As Members will know, a number of decisions have been made upholding the claimants' appeals. A great many more decisions have been made which denied the appeals. Because of these conflicting rulings, the next step will be to refer the matter to a higher level of judicial review. That process is taking place.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Can the Minister explain why the Government has chosen to harass people who won their appeals before the arbitrator, by taking them to a higher court? This forces them to continue without the revenue which is their due. Why did she harass those people when in

May 14, 1986
Quebec 400 cases went for the claimants and only 10 for the Department?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the few times I have heard an individual Member of Parliament argue against the judicial process. This process allows people to proceed through different levels of review and, Sir, that is taking place.


WEST COAST RADIOACTIVITY REPORTS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. People on the West Coast are understandably concerned about the reports of radioactive contamination of rainwater. The Minister has given both assurances and a caution on this subject. Can he take this opportunity to give us an update on the situation in order to reassure people out there?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as of this morning background radiation in the air in B.C. is down. That includes rainwater, and water in the Coquitlam reservoir. As far as milk is concerned, we are testing it daily. I note the B.C. Minister of Health has indicated there is no problem. We have found no traces in milk but we are testing daily as a precaution.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. If she thinks that the anger over her unemployment insurance cuts is going to go away, she is in for a big surprise. If she will not agree with Members on this side, or listen to the demonstrators outside, will she at least listen to Members of her own caucus? Does she disagree with the Conservative Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants who said if there was a vote in the Conservative caucus they would reject her policy?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been raised on a number of occasions and I will give exactly the same answer I have given on other occasions. This modification was introduced in November of 1984. At that time a one year lead time was given before implementation so people could adjust to the change in the regulations. There never was any question that it
Oral Questions
would come into effect in January of 1986. That has taken place, and we will await the report of the commission headed by Mr. Forget to see whether any recommendations for changes are made.


REQUEST FOR FREE VOTE ON ISSUE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. When we have the final votes on the Estimates will he allow or arrange for a free vote on this issue-
Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Allmand:: -so that we can once again test the integrity of the Conservative caucus and the spirit of the new rules in this House?


Mr. McDermid:: You can do the same thing on Turner's leadership.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Orders are quite clear in that regard. However, I would be a little concerned because I think we would probably have 39 different positions from the Liberal Party if we allowed that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Try it.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the post office. Yesterday he said he would make public the new business plan for the post office after he made a decision. In light of the seriousness of the proposal for delivery every three days only, which will affect seniors, will he make that plan public now so we can have a debate, or is he going to force us to use the Access to Information law?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said yesterday. We are examining a lot of alternatives with the post office administration. Alternate day delivery is just one. Internal analyses are being done and, as soon as a decision is reached, it will be announced publicly.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION CONCERNING POSTAL SERVICES
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has simply indicated that he is considering several

May 14, 1986
Oral Questions
alternatives to reduce services. I should like to ask him, first whether he feels it is important to hold a debate on postal services before making that decision and, second, whether he would rather have us proceed under the Access to Information legislation.


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I said we were examining a lot of alternatives. The Hon. Member knows that in order to comply with the request of the Minister of Finance to achieve self-sufficiency in the post office very shortly we have to examine these alternatives and take the best available. That is exactly what we will be doing, and we will do it without affecting services.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Mississauga is booming. A hundred million dollars worth of building permits are issued each month. The problem is that construction companies cannot get any bricklayers. Will the Minister try to issue short-term visas or work permits for bricklayers in order to help alleviate the situation?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we are indeed conscious of the prevailing situation in Mississauga, and in the Toronto area in general, concerning bricklayers. The Department has, through the Canada Employment Centres network and the National Job Bank, advertised the vacancies across the country. We are hoping this will alleviate the situation. In addition, officials of the Department will be meeting with the Toronto Home Builders Association next week to discuss what other steps might be taken to remedy the situation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In an interview published this morning, Mr. Michael Deaver quoted Fred Doucet of the Prime Minister's Office as saying to him: "You know you're a hell of a guy, a guy Canadians ought to be thinking about", to which Mr. Deaver replied: "For God's sake, don't talk to me about that."
What possible explanation can be given for this comment by a senior official of the Prime Minister's Office which was obviously taken seriously by Mr. Deaver? Has the Minister properly investigated this exchange which is a clear breach of American law?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the Hon. Member would be far happier if he were a member of the Congress or Senate of the United States so that he could pursue the issues that really interest him. Some of us from time to time think that this country would be better off under that circumstance as well. As the Member well knows, the comment read into the record of the House of Commons was a comment made in a light-hearted way by Dr. Doucet. It was interpreted that way by Mr. Deaver. Thoughout this, the Government of Canada has respected the law of Canada and the United States. Any suggestion to the contrary is unworthy of a Member of this House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: We have become quite used to the unworthy answers that we have received from the Minister. It is a serious question.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Lloyd Axworthy: Considering that this is a matter that concerns the behaviour of a Canadian official in the Prime Minister's Office, has the Secretary of State for External Affairs properly investigated it to determine whether this is a violation of Canadian law? Is he prepared to report to this Parliament so that we know what our officials are doing in foreign countries, breaking the law?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can report categorically to the House of Commons of Canada that the contract approved was in accordance with the law of Canada and with the law of the United States. I can also express my regret that the Hon. Member, perhaps inadvertently-since that is his custom-has been twisting words on this matter in the House and outside the House. That is conduct unworthy of a Member who wants to have the respect of the House of Commons and the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MONITORING OF RADIOACTIVITY LEVELS IN CANADA FOLLOWING SOVIET NUCLEAR REACTOR ACCIDENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Canadians from coast to coast are deeply worried and

May 14, 1986
disturbed about the long-term effects of radiation from Chernobyl and the inadequacy of regional measurements here in Canada. Since we have now learned that some foods are being impounded and high levels of radiation are of concern in terms of some of the crops grown in the Vancouver area, will the Minister be submitting a claim to the Soviet Union for all costs and damages?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think there is one point that has to be made before the question is answered. In his preamble the Member mentioned that Canadians were concerned about the inadequacy of Canadian monitoring or testing. That is simply not the case. Our monitoring and testing have been very good by every measure, including my discussions with the European regional office of the World Health Organization from which we just had a telegram again yesterday. There has been full cooperation, both internationally, and domestically with the provinces. That must be said so that the people of Canada know they are being well protected. That is the first point.
Should a claim with respect to any compensation have to be made, I, as Minister of Health, could not answer that independently. The Cabinet would have to make a decision on that. It has not yet been discussed.


REQUEST THAT DAMAGES CLAIM BE SUBMITTED TO SOVIET UNION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, there is only one area that has been tested in British Columbia. That is Vancouver. There are other areas of British Columbia.


An Hon. Member:: Not true.


James Ross Fulton: Ketchikan, Alaska, gives reports every five hours, not once a week.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a question?


James Ross Fulton: My supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who, I believe, has the jurisdiction in this. On January 24, 1978, Cosmos 954 crashed here in Canada, causing $14 million in damage.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the Hon. Member have a question immediately? Just a question.


James Ross Fulton: Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: That is not a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair obviously cannot tell if a question is supplementary until it has heard the question. May I hear the question, please?
Oral Questions


James Ross Fulton: Based on the precedent of Cosmos 954, will the Minister be submitting to the Soviet Union for payment, all costs and damages affecting Canada that are attributable to the Chernobyl disaster?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if there are damages to Canada proven as a consequence of that terrible accident, we will certainly seriously consider the suggestion that the Hon. Member has made.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Last Friday, the Inuit, the Dene, and the Metis reached a tentative agreement on where their land claims boundary will be. If this agreement is ratified, will the Government of Canada accept this agreement as being conclusive on the extent of jurisdiction for each claim, and if the boundary is also acceptable among northerners as the basis for the division of the Northwest Territories, will the Government of Canada be prepared to accept this boundary for the creation of two new territories?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for raising the matter. It gives me the opportunity to congratulate those who were involved in the recent meeting on the progress they have made. The Hon. Member may know that the native leaders will be meeting with the Government of the Northwest Territories in Rankin Inlet in June. I hope there will be progress at that meeting as well. As always, the federal Government stands in a receptive mood to resolve the matter, especially as it is being developed by northerners, in the North. I also want to take the opportunity to thank the Hon. Member for his contribution.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. The Price Waterhouse study of the losses suffered by Japanese Canadians is now public and serves to demonstrate the severe magnitude of the problems inflicted on this very community. Rather than taking an indifferent and irresponsible view of the findings, as he has to date, will the Minister assure the House that he will use this report as the vehicle to begin meaningful

May 14, 1986
Oral Questions
negotiations, as he promised in December, 1984, rather than taking to Cabinet an order that would run roughshod over the sensitive concerns of this community?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the Hon. Member's preamble, I will say that the results of the Price Waterhouse study were not a big surprise to anyone. As a matter of fact, in preparing the options for Cabinet, the losses were taken into consideration. The Hon. Member should know that there is more to the redress issue than financial matters. There is a moral matter and, from a moral standpoint, this Party is doing the right thing. It is certainly not his Party, which wanted to do nothing at all for the Japanese Canadians.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the malaise that has gripped the Government has now paralyzed the Minister as well because he knows that what he said is not true.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Sergio Marchi: I want to ask the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member may disagree on the facts but he cannot accuse the Minister of saying something that he knows not to be true. The Hon. Member knows he is moving into the area of unparliamentary language and I ask him to withdraw it and simply put his question.


Sergio Marchi: I disagree with the Minister's interpretation.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Sergio Marchi: I would like to ask-


Mr. Speaker:: I ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his statement, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order on this side as well. I ask the Hon. Member simply to withdraw his comment and put his question.


Sergio Marchi: I withdraw, as you instruct me. Why did the Government break its promise of December, 1984, when it said two things: first, that it would negotiate; second, that it would do it with and through the NAJC? Why has that not happened? Why can you not have the decency to use this report as the basis for genuine discussion?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Member is being long.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious that the Hon. Member is doing nothing but grandstanding. He knows very well that I, as the Minister representing the Government, have gone through the widest possible terms of negotiations and discussions with the Japanese Canadian community. I have put options before the Cabinet, and in recent days I have been asked by Mr. Miki, President of the NAJC, to meet with him to discuss the results of the Price Waterhouse study. I have accepted his invitation and I look forward to meeting with him and bringing any new evidence to the cabinet table for consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am in receipt of at least one request for a question of privilege arising out of Question Period and at least one Point of Order also arising out of Question Period. I intend to invoke our precedents with regard to a different matter of privilege before hearing those matters and recognize the Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin) on a question of privilege.


MEMBER FOR TERREBONNE-CHANGE OF POLITICAL ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to tell the House about my decision. I will simply read the self-explanatory letter I wrote to the Prime Minister: Mr. Prime Minister, I hereby advise you of my decision to leave the ranks of the Conservative Party of Canada. You may rest assured that I made this decision after long and serious consideration. There have been and there are still basic and now irreconcilable diverging views between your Government, your Party and myself concerning major issues. Henceforth I shall therefore sit as an Independent Member for the greatest benefit of all my Terrebonne constituents.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, the House will know that the Chair will find the appropriate way as early as possible to change the seating arrangement.
I am in receipt of a notice of a question of privilege arising out of Question Period from the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). For clarification, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) has submitted a question of privilege relating to yesterday which I will have to hear at the end of matters arising out of today's Question Period.
May 14, 1986


PRIVILEGE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the Chair what I believe is a question of privilege. I want to indicate that if the Chair decides I have a prima facie point of privilege, I am willing to move the appropriate motion to send it to the appropriate parliamentary committee.
As the Chair is aware, the rules in Beauchesne state we are not to accuse other Hon. Members of making untrue statements in the House of Commons. That is found on page 114 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fifth Edition, as decided by your predecessors on June 21, 1977 and November 16, 1977.
The point I want to bring to the Chair's attention is that a document was tabled in this House on September 9, 1985 from which I have quoted verbatim today in the House of Commons. In view of the fact that this document was tabled in this House, it is therefore a document in your possession, Mr. Speaker. I want you to investigate as to whether or not the declaration I made today in quoting from that document was untrue as alleged by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) when he answered a question in Question Period. He alleged I had made to you and to this House untrue statements relating to the letter of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) which was tabled in this House on September 9, 1985.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member knows that is not in fact a question of privilege but a point of order. Second, I think the Hon. Member is asking the Chair to investigate the facts with regard to an allegation. He knows the Chair does not do that.
The question he is asking me to determine is whether the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) was out of order in his suggestion that something was untrue, that a fact was not a fact. I think that, as the Hon. Member knows, is a matter of debate and not a matter of privilege or of order.
The other point of order I received was from the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, or would he prefer that I hear the other point of order first? The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is also rising on a point of order. Would the Parliamentary Secretary prefer that I hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare first?


Mr. Lewis:: Yes.


POINTS OF ORDER
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Today in Question
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis
Period I was asked a question. A supplementary question was then directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). Before the supplementary question itself was posed, the Flon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) put into the preamble something which I think is very damaging, not to me, but I think it is very important when we are dealing with issues of health and safety and radiation that accurate statements be made in the House.
The Hon. Member indicated that we were only testing in Vancouver. We are testing in three other locations in British Columbia. I think it is important that the House have that information in view of people's anxiety about this issue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is exactly the same as the other case. It is not a point of order.


INTERRUPTION OF QUESTION-CONTINUATION OF TRANSLATION-HANSARD CONTENT
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order arising out of Question Period. During the second question asked by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) the Chair found it necessary to rise to interrupt him, presumably because the question was too long. I was listening to the translation and trying to follow the question in French. Although you rose, Mr. Speaker, and in effect cut off the Hon. Member's microphone in the middle of his last sentence in French, the English translation continued and was completed.
Although I was not listening to the series of questions asked by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), I wonder if the same thing happened. I want to be very clear that everyone in this House from all Parties has the greatest of respect for the people who work in the translation booths. We all realize it is a very difficult job.
However, I want to put a question to you, Mr. Speaker. If a Member of Parliament is to be disciplined by being interrupted, and, therefore, is interrupted by Telecast and by microphone, should that discipline not continue-and I say this with respect to Ministers and Members of the Government as well as Members of the Opposition-should that procedure not continue, if possible, through the translation and also in Hansard?
I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that the point has never before occurred to me, but if that discipline does occur, live as it were, should it not occur in translation and also in Hansard? I do not know the answer to the question. I thought it should be posed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring to your attention that translation sometimes has a delay time. Perhaps the Hon. Member does not recognize that. The translators are not translating, they are interpreting so that the interpretation could be different from the translation as a means of communication.

May 14, 1986
Privilege-Mr. H. Gray
I caution the Speaker that in a case such as this the interpretation of what was said by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) could have taken perhaps a little more time. I cannot see any point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I will look at the point of order raised by the Hon. Member. However, I think the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is right in the sense that I would assume, and I will look into it, that once I turn off the microphone the connection between the Hon. Member and the translation booth is broken. I would assume, therefore, what is happening after that is what is left over from what has already gone through the microphone system.
With regard to Hansard, I would be happy to look into it. However, I think the Hon. Member will know that Hansard picks up whatever Hansard picks up from whatever source, which is not always simply the microphones. It may not be possible to create that interruption.
I appeciate the point the Hon. Member is trying to make and I will look into it.
I have received notice of a Question of Privilege from the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday 11, 1986, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) announced that, in the face of allegations of conflicts of interest raised in the House and in public, he had resigned from the Ministry and he asked for a public inquiry into the allegations in question. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in the Far East, and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) in the House of Commons, have indicated that the Government has agreed to such an inquiry outside this House, presumably under the Inquiries Act. But the person or persons who are to undertake this inquiry are not yet appointed and their terms of reference have not yet been made public.
It has been the contention of the Opposition that while an inquiry is most certainly required, the proper place for such an inquiry, since it directly involves the privileges, procedures and Members of the House of Commons, is the House itself, likely through one of its committees. The validity of this assertion has been proven by statements in the House during Question Period both yesterday and today by the Deputy Prime Minister concerning the proposed inquiry. These statements have underscored the unsuitability of an inquiry outside of this House under the Inquiries Act or otherwise, in this case, and the statements alone, I submit, violate the privileges of this House. In particular, the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, as recorded on page 13225 of Hansard for May 13, 1986:
-I have given Hon. Members the assurance that whatever statements or allegations have been made in the House of Commons, however temperate or intemperate, will be the subject matter of those terms of reference.
Later, on the same page, he is reported to have said:
Surely he would want to clothe the impartial person with the broadest possible terms of reference ... including all of the matters which have been raised in the House of Commons with respect to these circumstances-
Today in the House of Commons the Deputy Prime Minister said, and I think I have reported it accurately: "The investigation will take into account allegations made in the House of Commons both temperate and intemperate". These remarks make it clear that the Government is seeking through executive action to call into question statements made by Members of the House of Commons in Parliament in a place that, if it involves the Inquiries Act under statute law, has the power of a court of record. This is a clear violation of the privileges of Parliament recognized as long ago as the 14th century and, in fact, codified in Article 9 of the English Bill of Rights of 1688 as follows:
The freedom of speech and debates, or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached in any court or place out of Parliament.
The applicability of this principle to Canada is clear. I draw your attention, Sir, to the 1971 case of Roman Corp. v. Hudson's Bay Oil & Gas Co. wherein Mr. Justice Houlden of the Ontario Supreme Court, after citing the aforementioned Article of the Bill of Rights, held:
The court has no power to inquire into what statements were made in Parliament, why they were made, who made them, what was the motive for making them or anything about them-
The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Ontario Court of Appeal, wherein Mr. Justice Aylesworth held, in part:
I respectfully agree with the learned trial Judge that the respondents cannot be called upon to plead to or defend against, in any ordinary Court of law, the allegations concerning statements they made in the House of Commons. For more than one hundred years no such Court has entertained an action based upon such statements, declaring it to be within the absolute privilege of the House itself to deal with them as the House may see fit.
This case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr. Justice Martland specifically upheld the statements made in both the trial and appeal judgments that applied to statements made in Parliament.
This fundmental principle has also been upheld in the courts with respect to proceedings in provincial legislatures. For example, the Chief Justice of Quebec in the Quebec Court of Appeal in the case of Lavergne v. Le Club de la Garnison de Quebec dealing specifically with this point said:
This freedom of speech was originally intended as a protection against the power of the Crown.
Erskine May's Nineteenth Edition, Chapter VI, provides lengthy and learned defences of these positions. It is of particular interest to note its commentary on page 84, respecting Article 9 of the Bill of Rights cited previously:
There are three principal matters involved in the statement of law contained in this Article:-

May 14, 1986
1.	The right of each House to be the sole judge of the lawfulness of its own proceedings;
2.	The right implied to punish its own Members for their conduct in Parliament.
Further-
This point is not directly relevant to what I am submitting.
Further, there is the question,
3.	What is the precise meaning of the term "proceedings in Parliament"?
In any event, it is the first two of these principles with which we are concerned here.
As of this moment it is true that no inquiry outside of Parliament has attempted to improperly examine any statements made in Parliament; nor has the Government yet published any Order in Council under the Inquiries Act. However, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) has made it clear that the Government intends to do so and, in so doing, intends to instruct such inquiry, quite improperly and in breach of the privilege of the House, I submit, to call into question statements made by Members in the House.
Freedom of speech in the proceedings of Parliament, however, is so fundamental to the constitutional role of the House of Commons, that so clearly expressed an intent, the intent to cause an appointee of the Crown to infringe upon the freedom of speech of the House of Commons, must surely in itself constitute a breach of privilege.
There is also another breach of privilege in the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister. His statement that the Government intends to appoint an inquiry outside of the House of Commons into the proceedings of the House of Commons and statements made therein is a clear threat to Members of the House, if they do their duty as they have been doing, and as they intend to. The Deputy Prime Minister has clearly attempted to intimidate Members from saying and doing in the House what they consider to be the proper thing. He has threatened them with what could turn out to be an external kangaroo court investigation of whatever they say in the House if it does not please him, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government.
Citation 71 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition clearly states:
Direct threats which attempt to influence Members' actions in the House are undoubtedly breaches of privilege.
I conclude by saying that the Deputy Prime Minister has therefore clearly breached the privileges of the House on at least two scores. First, he has stated his intent to cause an appointee of the Crown to infringe on the freedom of speech of the House, a freedom so fundamental to the constitutional duty of Parliament that to express intent alone must surely constitute a breach of privilege. Second, his words constitute a clear threat in an attempt to intimidate Members in the exercise of their duties.
By way of conclusion I say that if the Deputy Prime Minister wants to have examined statements by Members made in this House, then surely it is an argument for our position that this can only be done in the House, or one of its
Privilege-Mr. H. Gray
committees. If the Government wants to have an investigation sufficiently broad to examine what Members say in this House, then it should agree with our position-there should be an inquiry in one of the committees of this House.
I submit there has been a prima facie breach of privilege. If you agree, Mr. Speaker, I have an appropriate motion to move.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, of course, I did not have any prior notice of this question of privilege. After hearing the House Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Gray) I am glad that I did not.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We will see how smart you are.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There is absolutely no foundation with respect to the contention made by the Hon. Member that there is a question of privilege in this particular matter. If we were to follow the logic of the Hon. Member's submission, then any inquiry with respect to any item which is the subject matter of debate or questioning on the floor of the House of Commons would somehow be interpreted as being an infringement on the rights of Members with respect to the deliberations of the House of Commons. Clearly, this is not the case.
Indeed, if Your Honour were to search the record you would see that this is the paradox of the whole situation. During the course of Question Period, not only were members of the Opposition demanding information with respect to this matter, they were demanding-and I believe it was the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), as well as other Members-that there be an independent inquiry with respect to this entire matter.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Parliamentary.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Of course, it is now a parliamentary inquiry. I want to make what I have to say brief because I understand the political point that has been attempted to be made by the Hon. House Leader. Clearly, this is a political position put forward by the opposition Parties. I accept that as a political position. However, as far as being a question of privilege is concerned, I would like to make two points. The first, in a procedural sense, is that the whole question of a Code of Conduct for cabinet Ministers is not a matter which is normally within the scope of the activities of the House of Commons. It is extra-parliamentary, if I may put it that way. It is a matter within the prerogative of a Prime Minister-


Mr. Foster:: That's a new theory.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -just the same as it was with the predecessor to the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). There is adequate authority and precedent-


Maurice Brydon Foster: Name one!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -with respect to this matter. If Hon. Members opposite will give me a few moments, and some notice, I would be glad to quote chapter and verse out of Bourinot's and out of-

May 14, 1986
Privilege-Mr. H. Gray


Maurice Brydon Foster: Quote it, then!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I know there are precedents, Mr. Speaker, because I have observed them on a number of occasions with respect to different cases. 1 recall the case of John Pallett, MP, wherein there was a question of his activities and an allegation made with respect to those activities in 1959. The Speaker at that time held that matters that occured outside of the House of Commons, not in the capacity of a Member of Parliament, were not matters of privilege.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's not the point!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: So the question here with respect to the Code of Conduct-Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray)-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, you did not. Evidently you did not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Perhaps they would do me the courtesy of letting me complete my argument. I take seriously the position put forward by the House Leader of the Official Opposition. I think it is unfounded; but I listened to him and I allowed him to complete his argument.
What 1 am saying is that this matter is a matter in which there is an investigation. As a matter of fact, the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) has indicated the intention of the Prime Minister with respect to the process, which is outlined in the Code of Conduct set forth in his letter and the letter to Ministers which was tabled in the House of Commons on September 9, 1985.
I would like to conclude here. I simply say that this is not a question of privilege. It does not affect in any way whatsoever the ability of Members to conduct their affairs. It does not in any way constrain Members from carrying on debate. The question of privilege is one which impinges upon the ability of Members to carry out their responsibilities. There is absolutely no question with respect to the intent of this particular inquiry. It has to do with matters outside of the House of Commons and not the activities of Members of Parliament in this place.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it Hon. Members now wish to rise to debate the question of privilege? Hon. Members know that the Chair has been given notice of a desire to raise a prima facie case of privilege. It is our practice, when it is put by a House Leader, to allow a response from a House Leader. However, the Chair cannot allow debate on the question at this time without determining whether or not there is a question of privilege. I think Hon. Members know that. Does the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) wish to contribute somehow to the question of a prima facie case?


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I do wish to rise to speak to the question of prima facie breach of privilege in
these circumstances. I would ask leave of the Chair to have an opportunity to make a brief submission on this very important question.
The issue here is clear and goes directly to the heart of Parliament itself. As has been suggested by the Government House Leader, we are not talking about actions which have taken place outside the House or this institution. The allegation of breach of privilege does not go to the actions or alleged actions of the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion or to the Code of Conduct. Rather, the allegation of breach of privilege goes squarely to the question of the words of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) and the centuries-old traditions of the House. I would suggest that that is the issue.
The Government House Leader has suggested that some obscure precedent from 1959 involving activities outside the House was not relevant here. He is absolutely right. That precedent has nothing whatsoever to do with the allegations made here.
The allegation made here is quite straightforward. Yesterday and again today the Deputy Prime Minister stated that an outside inquiry would be given any statements or allegations that had been made in the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, may I have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is making the speech he might wish to make if the matter were before the House. Could he bring himself to precedents with regard to a prima facie case, please?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in pursuing the question of the existence of a prima facie case, I would again remind the Chair that the privileges of which we are speaking here date back to 1688 and to the Bill of Rights. It is totally unacceptable and indeed a breach of the privileges of all Members of the House for any outside body, whether it be a judicial inquiry, a quasijudicial inquiry or any other form of outside body, to be passing judgment on words spoken in this House. The opposition House Leader made reference to the precedents. He referred to the statements of Mr. Justice Houlden and others. That is the issue which is squarely before the House. No outside body has the right to pass judgment on words spoken here.
If any individual wishes to challenge words spoken in the House, the proper mechanism for doing so is surely within the House itself through the committee on privileges and elections.
I suggest that the words spoken both today and yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister, in and of themselves, constitute a breach of the privileges of all Members of the House.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I believe that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. May 14, 1986

Gray), has gone far enough in establishing precedents. In my brief contribution, I would like to draw the attention of the Chair to other occasions on which the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) used language of the same kind. On May 12, as reported at the bottom of page 13171 of Hansard, the Deputy Prime Minister said the following:
The impartial investigation which is being considered will be governed by terms of reference broad enough to encompass all of the accusations, allegations-unfounded or whatever-
-that have come from opposition Members and, I might add, from the media.
I bring this up to add to what my colleague has already said. It is clear that it is the intention of the Government to have what has been said in the House of Commons scrutinized by an organization outside this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Given the nature and length of the interjections, of course I will reserve on this and get back to the House as quickly as I can.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the Government's responses to five petitions.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of residents of Scarborough who call upon Parliament to require the Government of the Province of Ontario to remove restrictions in regard to laying charges under Section 251 of the Criminal Code concerning the Morgentaler clinic in Toronto.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of residents of the riding of Mississauga South who are urging that Section 251 of the Criminal Code be strengthened to make the law against abortion more easily enforced.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by some of my own constituents who claim that the deduction of the pension benefits from the unemployment insurance benefits is seriously interfering with efforts of employers in the community to create employment via early retirement pension packages and they ask that the House of Commons rescind that action by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald).
Petitions


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of submitting a certified petition on behalf of a number of residents from Kamloops, British Columbia, who are concerned about the decision of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) which is that after December 31, 1985, pension benefits are to be deducted from unemployment insurance benefits. They are simply calling upon the Government to ensure that all retired employees keep their pension benefits and receive their unemployment insurance benefits without the deduction of pension income.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a certified petition which contains names gathered by the BCAA and asks that Parliament consider withdrawing the separate excise taxes on automotive fuel, reducing the federal sales tax applied on gasoline to a fixed level as it was prior to 1981 and calling a federal-provincial First Ministers' Conference at an early date to discuss the methods by which provinces could reduce respective taxation on automotive fuels.


Mr. Aurele Gervais (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a certified petition signed by 950 residents of the Town of Chapleau, representing more than one-half of the adult population of the town, calling upon Parliament to urge the large gasoline companies to end the practice of having different gasoline and heating oil prices in zones that they themselves create artificially and to move toward a common base price for the Province of Ontario in both commodities.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition signed by some 3,000 residents of the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean region asking Parliament to reject the establishment of a firing range in their area and demanding that this money be reinvested into true development programs such as job creation, education, health, social services and tourism. This petition has been organized by Mrs. Albertine Larouche and the committee against the firing range, based in l'Ascension, Quebec.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition which meets the requirements of Standing Order 106. The petitioners state that they are in favour of the Katimavik program which had proved a success both for the development of some 20,000 young participants over the past 10 years, and for the major community projects in which these young volunteers were involved. They ask the Government to reconsider its decision to terminate this program.

May 14, 1986
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) seeking the floor to present another petition? Our practice would normally be to hear his petitions all at once.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition which has been signed by several hundred residents of provinces across Canada, organized by Mr. Richard Pearson of Marie-Reine, Alberta.
The petitioners call upon the Government to preserve the South Moresby region of British Columbia as a national park in order to preserve the pristine nature of the virgin forest of that area.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Hon. Member continues, may I point out to him that the part of his remarks referring to the petition being organized by somebody is out of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions signed by several hundred residents of the constituency of Burnaby. They call upon the Government to ensure that the CRTC denies telephone companies such as B.C. Tel the right to impose a charge for each telephone call. Also they call upon the CRTC to order the retention of monthly rentals for telephones and to deny local measured service.


Mr. Speaker:: Have all those petitions been certified by the Table prior to their presentation?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, as always, they have been certified.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this point in time to announce the business for the balance of this week. I have given the matter serious consideration and, on the representation of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), I hereby designate tomorrow and Friday as allotted days.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I knew you would do it.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 518.


Mr. Murphy: Did Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Ltd. (Irving) at Saint John, New Brunswick have a I 1/2 year lay-off and, if so, what amount was spent by the Department of Employment and Immigration on training opportunities for (a) hourly (6) salaried employees who were part of this lay-off?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Yes, (a) $491,000, (b) $100,000.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would you please call notices of motions Nos. 20 and 21, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner)?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary want to present the responses?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) could not be in attendance at this time. He asked that the responses be read into the record and then, if you would be so kind, to transfer them for debate.
AMERICAN EMBASSY-SITE SELECTION CRITERIA Motion No. 20-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any report made to the Minister of Public Works concerning the site selection criteria for locating the new home of the American Embassy and all other embassies within the National Capital Region.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, to date there has been no report made to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) concerning the site selection criteria for locating either the new home
May 14, 1986

of the American Embassy or other embassies within the National Capital Region. Selection criteria often vary with each case. The National Capital Commission has hired consultants to prepare a full proposal for the relocation of the U.S. Embassy based on site selection criteria developed by the United States Government and the National Capital Commission. If the consultants determine that the Mile Circle is indeed the appropriate location for the American Embassy, a report will be presented to the Minister for his review and consideration at that time.
I therefore ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his motion.
SECURITY REQUIREMENTS OF NEW AMERICAN EMBASSY Motion No. 21-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any report made to the Minister of Public Works concerning the exact security requirements of the United States State Department and all Canadian investigations for the security needs of the proposed site for the new American Embassy within the Mile Circle in Ottawa, Ontario.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, to date there has been no report made to the Minister of Public Works concerning the exact security requirements of either the United States State Department or the responsible Canadian security authorities for the security needs of the proposed site for the new American Embassy within the Mile Circle in Ottawa, Ontario.
I therefore ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Further to the request of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton, Motions Nos. 20 and 21 are transferred for debate, subject to Standing Order 73.