1986-11-19

THE LATE HON. DONALD CAMPBELL JAMIESON

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my unhappy duty to draw to the attention of all Hon. Members the death of a colleague and friend, Don Jamieson. Certain Hon. Members will be rising and paying tribute. We will commence with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we learned with shock this morning that Donald Jamieson died while he was jogging in Swift Current.
At the outset it is hard to say something sad about a man who really expressed and reflected such joy. Don Jamieson approached the challenge of life with energy, vigour, and enthusiasm. As most Hon. Members of the House know, his first political involvement related to the pre-Confederation debates in Newfoundland where he opposed the entry of Newfoundland into Confederation. The battle was far closer than anyone imagined, but Newfoundland chose to join Canada. From that moment Don Jamieson accepted the result with grace and became a total Canadian.
Don often remarked that he became a Canadian not by birth, not by conviction, but by conversion. In his subsequent career he was able to prove time and time again how useful it was for both Newfoundland and Canada to have our newest province as part of the terms of union with our country. Of course he ended his career in the House of Commons speaking for us Canadians as a nation and speaking for us eloquently on the world forum after his retirement as a Minister and a Member, representing our country so elegantly in the United Kingdom.

Even if over time, Don Jamieson became one of Canada's most ardent defenders, he never missed an opportunity to promote the interests of the province of his birth, and he did so with his legendary humour.
I think we all knew that Don Jamieson was gifted in his sense of humour. In fact, I was always convinced that Don had invented the so-called Newfie jokes himself. I remember he always told me that they said in Newfoundland:
If you have a reputation for getting up early in the morning, you can sleep in until noon.
We all recall with warmth the day he intervened in the House of Commons during a discussion of payments for farm-stored wheat. He exclaimed:
Mr. Speaker, I am very sympathetic to financial support for farm-stored wheat, but 1 have to ask the House to give a favourable ear, as well, to the question of sea-stored cod!
He embodied the highest standards of public office- commitment, compassion, and integrity. He came from a humble background. He rose by way of his own abilities to a senior position in the Canadian broadcasting industry, but he never forgot where he came from, nor did he ever lose touch with the people who elected him and whom he represented.
I am very proud in personal terms, Mr. Speaker, to have known Don Jamieson as a colleague and to have treasured him as a friend. I extend on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and our caucus colleagues, our deepest sympathy to Barbara Jamieson, his widow, and to their four children.
I think it would be appropriate to close by quoting from Don's very first, his maiden speech in the House of Commons, made on May 9, 1967, because I think most of us who knew him and had the honour of sharing this place with him will recognize that there never has been a finer speaker in this Chamber than Don Jamieson:
This country has survived and flourished because its people have been prepared to fly in the face of conformity. The very existence of Canada, I suggest, proves the claim that most worthwhile things in this world are done by people who, when they are told that their dreams are vain, go on to realize them anyway.
I am happy to bear witness to the fact that Don Jamieson's dreams were realized, were fulfilled and that he made an immense contribution to Newfoundland and to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in this tribute to our former late colleague, Don Jamieson, on behalf of the Government of Canada and our Party. I think he would have to be recognized by everyone in Newfoundland as being one of the greatest political figures of Newfoundland in the 20th century and I think of Canada as well.
Don turned 65 last April. He was working, I believe, on a book on events that occurred preceding and during Newfoundland's entry into confederation. I am sure it would have been a great book had he finished it.
1310

November 19, 1986
The Late Donald Jamieson
On a personal note, I had known Don Jamieson ever since I was a boy. He was associated with my late father, Ches Crosbie, when he started in business many years ago with Gaden's where he started as well in the radio business broadcasting sports for Gaden's Ltd. He was associated with my father also with a group of people who urged that we pursue economic union with the United States rather than confederation with Canada and that we keep our options open. There were the famous referenda of 1948 and 1949 in that regard.
Even then Don was a golden-tongued orator and was one of the greatest political speakers of the 20th century. He was certainly in a class with Joseph Smallwood himself, which was no mean feat. He was a broadcaster, a communicater and an author. He wrote a book "'The Troubled Air" before going into politics, so the trouble did not refer, of course, to the political sphere. He was a patriot. He was a great representative of Canada as Secretary of State for External Affairs. He was warm-spirited, convivial, thoughtful, not narrowly partisan and certainly articulate.
I well remember the period that he was a Minister. He was elected to this House first in 1966 in a by-election and sworn into the Privy Council on July 6, 1968 as Minister of Defence Production. He became Minister of Transport, Minister of DRIE, Minister of Industry Trade and Commerce and then on September 14, 1976 he was appointed Secretary of State for External Affairs, a post he filled for three years. We were very proud of him in Newfoundland that he had been chosen to represent all of Canada and that a Newfoundlander had achieved that position. He did a remarkable job. He was on top of his files wherever he went and he always looked convincing. I think I can remember seeing him on television giving Brezhnev a bear-hug. I have to say this, that Brezhnev shook first when that great bear-hug took place.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: It is interesting that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) mentioned that Don never forgot his roots. He lived in Swift Current where the Beck family came from. His great grandfather had come from Scotland and had lived on Sound Island which is in Placentia Bay and later resettled. Don built a residence on Sound Island some years ago and lived there for part of the year himself.
During the time he was a Minister and Newfoundland's representative in Ottawa, as we call it, the Progressive Conservative administration under Mr. Moores had taken over the Government of Newfoundland, and during the period from 1972 to 1979 our relationship with Don Jamieson was very, very warm. He always worked together with the Newfoundland Government to see what he could do for Newfoundland, not forgetting of course that his own district was one-seventh of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The relationship was a good one despite the difference in parties.
I noticed when I came here that Don was warmly regarded on all sides of the House. He had friends in all parties. That is as it should be. I think Don well illustrated what Thomas Haliburton once said, that to handle a ship you must know all the ropes. He knew all the ropes of the ship of state as he exemplified in his career.
He left this House in 1979 to go back to Newfoundland and became Leader of the Opposition. He left politics in 1981 to become our High Commissioner at the end of 1982 in England, a most capable High Commissioner for Canada in the U.K. He had a very significant career both in Newfoundland and Canada and I want to pass on our condolences today to his wife Barbara, his four children, Donna, Heather, Roger and Debbie, and his three grandchildren.
I would close by saying that Don exemplified something that John Bunyan said in Pilgrim's Progress when he was defining democracy. He said that democracy was primarily an attitude of mind, a spiritual testament, in which politics was still the greatest and most honourable adventure. Don came from a very successful career in the public sector, particularly in broadcasting where he was the best known broadcaster in Newfoundland. He was four years president of The Canadian Association of Broadcasters, by the way. He entered into politics because I think he thought that politics was still the greatest and most honourable adventure. That is a thought and spirit not much in evidence today, more's the pity, but I hope one that we will get back to before too much longer because politics is still in my view as well the greatest and most honourable adventure. Don himself was one of the greatest and most honourable adventurers in that profession.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, today Canada has lost a distinguished citizen and Newfoundland has lost a noble son. I would like to pick up from where the Minister just left off in quoting Bunyan about the life of politics and referring it entirely appropriately to Don Jamieson.
Don Jamieson brought to Canada many significant attributes as a human being. Before I say something briefly about them, I think it is in one sense supremely ironic that in order to win his subsequent battles he had to lose a decisively important one first. That has already been referred to concerning the battles of 1948 and 1949. As he said subsequently, he was on the wrong side. As a good Newfoundlander he campaigned against Newfoundland joining Canada. He of course changed his mind and we can all be glad that he lost his first battle in order to go on and make a great contribution, not only to his native province, which he loved so well, but to the great land of Canada, which we all love so well.
He did a rare thing in politics. He was a Liberal who was, in his time, with perhaps one or two exceptions, the best orator in the House of Commons. In crucial moments he was able to
November 19, 1986

revive the spirits or lead the charge of members of his own party. He did it in such a way as to devastate, perhaps only momentarily, the arguments of the competing Parties while not leaving an iota of bad feeling in the House of Commons. It is a remarkable accomplishment to be passionately and intelligently committed to your cause, to emerge victorious in a debate, and still somehow manage to leave your opponents feeling pretty good about the situation. That is a considerable politician, Mr. Speaker. He was that kind of man.
It has already been said that he was humorous. He could laugh at himself and make fun of his personal circumstances. He spoke with conviction. He served as Minister in a number of Departments. He was a distinguished ambassador for the people of Canada in the United Kingdom. He served ably in the private sector. All in all, he was a very fine Canadian.

He was a good citizen of Newfoundland and a good Canadian. He was passionate and had a great sense of humour.

We will all remember him with affection. We send to his wife and his children our deepest sympathies.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) to say a few words in tribute to a former colleague, a great Canadian, a son of Newfoundland and a friend.
All of us here knew of Don Jamieson, the public man. Some here have valued his friendship for many more years than I. We each remember him in different ways. He inspired us, he challenged us, sometimes he left us in awe and he could always make us laugh, even in the most difficult of circumstances. He was a complete human being and whatever our differing recollections of Don Jamieson, on this I think we can all agree. He was an orator who knew no equal, neither in this House nor on the political stump in the charged atmosphere of a political meeting. His was a spellbinding oratory, born not of rhetoric but out of commitment and burning passion for those things he believed in. The quality of those great sterling pipes that represented Don Jamieson at his best in full flight was exceeded only by the sterling quality of that great mind that gave birth to his words.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, he spoke for the first time in this House on May 9, 1967, when he delivered the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. He said:
We in this House ought to remind ourselves more often than we do that it is in fact the people's house and that everything we do here affects the lives of people.
The great grey, anonymous bureaucracy may have no alternative but to deal with statistics and references to units of population, samples, cells, and all the other jargon of the trade, but as Members of Parliament we are involved and must be concerned with human beings. The machinations of our political parties,
The Late Donald Jamieson
the conflicts that occur between parties and between individuals naturally attract a great deal of attention, but they are really the froth of public life. The substance lies in what we do here-
As Don Jamieson's executive assistant from Newfoundland, I was moved by his great commitment to public service and public duty. But I can tell you that his public commitment, as profound as it was, was no greater than his commitment to his family. In the last analysis, it must be said that his wife, Barbara, his children Donna, Heather, Roger and Debbie, were at the centre of his universe always. Family is the way Don Jamieson saw this country; each of us unique, seeking different goals, but with responsibility and commitment to each other.
He was born a Newfoundlander. Against his will he became a Canadian, and out of conviction his love for Canada grew. Nearly 20 years ago he said these words in the House of Commons, and I know that he would want to leave them with us today:
I believe that we can restore to our children of the streets their rightful heritage of broad open spaces and good, clean air. But this will not be done by cold-blooded theorists or by slide rule administrators. This is not something that will appeal to those who believe that man is content with clothes on his back, three square meals a day and a roof over his head. The challenge is to those who would free the human spirit and relieve the monotony of our every day lives. It is to those who would create new horizons of beauty to delight the eye, new cultural experiences to stimulate the mind, and peaceful havens where we can relieve the tensions of our hurried pace. That dream has stirred the hearts of men and women since the beginning of time, and I believe that if we have the will we have the ability to make it a reality.
In closing, I know that that dream was alive in Don Jamieson this morning. I believe he has passed the torch to all of us and it should be said that when last we saw him he was in the place that he loved best, at home in Swift Current, Newfoundland. He was with the people he loved best, his family and neighbours. He was doing the thing that he loved best and talked about in the dream, being out in the wide open space taking in the good, clean air. May God speed him on his way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of every broadcaster in Canada who ever had the experience of knowing Don Jamieson, and what a rich experience it was. Don Jamieson knew the thrust and the throb of the broadcasting industry, and as President of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters for four consecutive years from 1961 to 1965 he was considered one of the most important influences in what was emerging as a new era in mass communications. Mr. Jamieson spoke loudly and often in favour of private initiative. Largely because of him, the "we" versus "them" attitude between private broadcasters and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was broken down. Don Jamieson proved that the two sectors could indeed co-exist.
As a private broadcaster myself, it was through Don Jamieson that I fell in love with his cherished Province of

November 19, 1986
Newfoundland back in the 1960s. Throughout the 1970s, Mr. Jamieson was instrumental in helping me sign on as a Parlia-mentry Press Gallery correspondent for CJON-TV in St. John's.
It was during these years that I learned of his phenomenal photographic memory, his ability to glance at a wire story and sit down in front of a camera and go for a half hour without a script, commercials and all. The fact is, according to his wife, Barbara Jamieson, with that particular art, he would forever forget to pick up the laundry on the way home.
If anything endeared Don Jamieson to his host of friends from all political Parties, it was his wonderful sense of humour, as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) pointed out. My favourite story-at least one that can be repeated here- was told to me by Senator Finlay MacDonald, a long-time broadcaster and friend of Don Jamieson. Hon. Members will recall that the referendum which brought Newfoundland into confederation was extraordinarily close. Shortly after that historic day, Senator MacDonald asked Don Jamieson how those who opposed confederation felt afterward and whether they were bitter. "Well, Finlay, it's like this", said Mr. Jamieson. "I have a half interest in a racehorse in Corner Brook. You could never get him out of the starting-gate unless you put a bottle of screech in his feedbag". "So what happened?" asked Fin MacDonald. "Well, he never won a race but he was the happiest loser you ever saw".
[DOT] (U30)
Don Jamieson was very much a winner to broadcasters. He was inducted into the Canadian Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame in Vancouver early this month. Don Jamieson once said: "I think I'm the first Newfoundlander in public life who is a total Canadian". He will be sorely missed, Mr. Speaker, by Canada's broadcasters and by Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, it may surprise some Hon. Members that I want to add a few words to what has already been said. I am not going to repeat what has been said but there is a part which has been missed. The Hon. Member who just spoke came close when he talked about Mr. Jamieson's photographic memory. I was in the House and heard the maiden speech mentioned by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). He is right. The House of Commons is the people's court. I do not speak in any representative capacity as Leader of the House, nor do I have a former association with broadcasting, but I was a brand new Member sitting almost behind the seat of the former Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe who with his own rhetoric emulated his boss. I sat there by the curtain and heard his maiden speech. It was not what he said, although that was tremendous, but it was how he said it.
As the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) said today, Don Jamieson personified the essence and spirit of this place. On May 9, 1967 he rose in his place to make his maiden speech
and without a note, without a piece of paper, his eloquence was heard. I will never forget that speech. My friend, the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) was here but he was sitting a little closer to Mr. Diefenbaker. He was always a little closer to him than I sometimes was. My leader of the day, the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker wrote a note, again in the spirit of Parliament, and that note may be in the book which is being written. I hope it is. It has been said they differed strenuously on the floor of the House, but it was never with malice. John George Diefenbaker wrote a note saying it was the greatest Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne that the late Hon. Member for Prince Albert had ever heard.
Those of us who were privileged to know Don Jamieson are the poorer for his loss. Newfoundland is the better because of him. Let us hope that, in his memory, we will make this place a little more the way he would have liked it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words because I had the privilege of serving as Parliamentary Secretary to the Hon. Don Jamieson. Speaking on my own behalf and on behalf of all Quebecers, I would like to join in expressing to his wife Barbara and his children our great sense of loss. Thanks to Don Jamieson, many of us learned to know and love Newfoundland and the people who live there. Those who, like myself, had an opportunity to travel with him to various parts of the world when he was Secretary of State for External Affairs, learned to know and love people and to understand the basic principle of how to communicate with people, even with those whose opinions we often do not share. I therefore wish to join my colleagues in extending to his family our heartfelt sympathy, and especially to his wife Barbara, who I had the honour of meeting, and his children.


Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding, I would ask all Hon. Members to stand with me for one minute of silence.
[Whereupon the House stood in silence for one minute.]



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, the Government took great pride in the fact that it arranged the sale of the Mitel Corporation to British Telecommunications less than nine months ago and gave great assurances with regard to the benefits of such a sale to all
November 19, 1986

Canadians. Within the last few days British Telecommunications has in turn decided to cut several hundred jobs at the four-year old Renfrew plant and has plans to close down that plant operation entirely after only four years of operation.
To add insult to injury the Government is allowing British Telecommunications to lift the research and development of the Mitel empire out of Canada in spite of the fact that Canadian taxpayers have a major investment in that research and development.
With regard to the sale of Mitel to British Telecommunications, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion stated on February 26, 1986: "Jobs will be preserved as a result of this transaction as Mitel's manufacturing as well as research and development activities will continue to be carried out in Canada". This sounds like all the other profound promises of this disastrous Government.
Today I have learned that the President of the National Research Council of Canada, the Vice-President and the section head from the Hertzberg Institute


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired.



UNITED NATIONS


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians were startled to hear that there is not a qualified woman in Canada for an important position at the under-secretary level at the United Nations who would be charge of the public information office. This is especially embarrassing since Canada itself has publicly criticized the UN for being such an all-male club. Canada has urged the UN to seek out and appoint women to senior positions. Preaching equality but not acting on it is not appreciated anywhere in Canada except perhaps the Petroleum Club.
Apparently a few Canadian women were approached about the job and but were not available or interested, but surely the Government could look further. Doubtless the Department of External Affairs itself needs to fill more senior positions with women so it will have the necessary contacts with well qualified women. Now that the Secretary General has asked for a nomination, we expect the Department of External Affairs to keep looking until it can make a good nomination.



MESSAGES FROM HOLY ANGELS PRIMARY SCHOOL PUPILS

Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, the other day in my riding, I took part in a march for world peace through the streets of Saint-Lambert, with the pupils of Saints-Anges primary school. More than 350 pupils gave me their peace symbols and messages, and I promised I would let the House know about them. Although I cannot read them all, here are a few passages which make one stop and think.
Vincent Dostie (9 years old) said: "To me, peace means no violence and people who have settled their differences. Where there is peace, there is harmony and gentleness. The reason I want peace is because I don't want a third world war."
Genevieve Gosset (9 years old) said: "Peace means love and no more war on this earth. No more poverty but healing the sick and feeding the hungry. What I want most is peace, love and happiness."
Marie-Flo Menard (9 years old) said: "All we want is tranquility, kindness, goodness, gentleness, calm and harmony. When people start loving each other and there is no more poverty, we will all be happy. If we sent food and clothing to those who need it-"
Mr. Speaker, I think that if we show love and respect for others, we will find the peace so earnestly desired by the people of this earth.
* *
*



AIR CANADA


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, on October 26 Air Canada unilaterally, without consultation, deprived 1.5 million citizens of Edmonton and Alberta of daily direct flights to Ottawa. This route was economically sound. It is inconceivable that Edmonton, the capital of Alberta, would be forced to face a cut in its link to the nation's capital.
Yesterday morning I met with the President of Air Canada who claimed the airline must save money so it must cut the line. Due to the newly extended length of the flight, Edmontonians will be obliged to add an extra day to their travel time between Ottawa and Edmonton. This added expense of overnight accommodation and time lost at work will cost western Canadians extra tens of thousands of dollars in travelling expenses.
I would like to state here and now that the Crown corporation Air Canada is doing a disservice to the city of Edmonton and its people. I urge Air Canada to reconsider its decision, restore the direct route, and treat Edmonton in a fair and just manner.

November 19, 1986
S.O.	21 REFUGEES



PLIGHT OF IRANIAN REFUGEE

Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Press has just reported that the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) has refused refugee status to an individual who will face torture and probable execution when the U.S. deports him to Iran next week.
When the U.S. tried to return this individual to Iran earlier this year, the man attempted suicide by slashing his wrists during a stopover in Paris. Consequently, France refused to send him on to Iran and, instead, returned him to Washington.
His plea to Canada for a humanitarian reconsideration was shunted aside by the Minister with the cold comment: "We have no grounds to intervene".
It is ironic that the Minister can issue a ministerial permit to an individual with a record of over 20 criminal convictions, and give special entry to a Hungarian spy, but refuse to deal compassionately with a human being who faces almost certain death. The Minister's decisions are inconsistent, illogical, and confusing.
I suggest that the Minister review his policy position so that immigration decisions can once again be returned to a firm, compassionate, and sensible ground. Anything less is simply not good enough.



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous action the Legislature of the Province of Ontario took an historic step toward official bilingualism yesterday.

Meanwhile, the Quebec Government has confirmed the rights of Anglophones in that province, while maintaining the predominant position of French in Quebec.

But the Government of Canada has neglected its responsibilities to advance the principles of the Official Languages Act.
The Mulroney Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Order! Order!


Abram Ernest Epp: -refused to let the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages launch a reconnaissance of the country last year that could have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member must watch the language and structure of his sentences in his statement. He may continue his statement, and complete it.	,


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are still waiting for the Canadian Government to show some more leadership in this matter.
Federal Government services must be available in the minority's language.
Francophones in the public service have the right to work in French every day.

National reconciliation requires action, not just fine words in the Speech from the Throne.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Hnatyshyn) recently announced the publication of a guide for victims of sexual assault.
Today I would like to draw the attention of the House to this guide because it is a tool that provides victims-most of them women-with information on the services that are available to them and on how the judicial system works.
In addition to explaining the legal provisions that apply to sexual assault, it also describes the whole mechanism of investigation and criminal proceedings that is set off by a charge of sexual assault.
Furthermore, this kind of initiative answers a need that has existed for a long time, and it reflects this Government's concern for these victims who are often misunderstood and left to fend for themselves. The guide will not only help give victims a sense of direction, it will also make the various intervenors in the judicial system better aware of their needs.
Finally, I would remind all those who at some time will be involved in such proceedings that to keep silent when one can speak is to promote deliberately what is morally wrong.



DEREGULATION OF NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY-ACTION TAKEN BY TRANSCANADA PIPELINES

Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, on October 29 I rose in the House to call for TransCanada Pipelines to sever its production and marketing segments from
November 19, 1986

its natural gas transmission. With natural gas deregulation I was concerned that third parties would not be allowed access to TransCanada's pipeline on the same basis as TransCanada's marketing affiliate.
One of the major impediments was TransCanada's proposal to charge each third party $ 12,600 per month per contract for those wishing to ship natural gas through TransCanada's pipeline. This proposed charge was rescinded on November 10. Rescinding this charge benefits consumers and producers alike, consumers by giving them access to lower-priced gas and producers by allowing them market access.
TransCanada must be complimented on the removal of this impediment to a freer gas market.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government talks about supporting the family, volunteers, and the church. I had a visit to my office last week from someone from the Presbyterian Record who pointed to a situation in which, because of changes in Canada Post, the publication faces a financial crisis of major proportions. At one time the publication had second-class mailing privileges. Up until October of this year the cost of mailing the Presbyterian Record to every Presbyterian in Canada who subscribed to it was $3,600 per month. As of last month the cost increased to over $17,000 per month.
This is the effect the change in designation has had on one church, one voluntary organization. But there are hundreds of other voluntary organizations facing the same problem. They will have to cut back on communicating with their members because of the negative policies of Canada Post and the negative policies of the Government.
I urge the Minister to intervene to force Canada Post to permit second-class mailing privileges for voluntary and church organizations.



THREE WOMEN APPOINTED TO SENATE

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Today, Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend congratulations to Mrs. Spivack, Mrs. Rossiter and Mrs. Cochrane for their recent Senate appointment. By selecting three women to fill these Senate vacancies, the Prime Minister of Canada has highlighted the work and dedication of
women within community organizations, the teaching profession, and social planning agencies.
Mr. Speaker, our Government did nothing more than acknowledge the wide-ranging experience of these women, something the private sector has already done since all three sit on boards of directors or are associated with various companies.
Mr. Speaker, it so happens that, since September 1984, 40 per cent of this Government's Senate appointees have been women. And the Progressive Conservative Government did honour its commitment by increasing to 25.1 the percentage of women on federal commissions, agencies and councils.
This is an unparalleled achievement, Mr. Speaker, and our Government will continue to appoint women to positions for which they are ideally suited.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, on November 6 Toronto lawyer Harry Kopyto was sentenced for the criminal offence of contempt by scandalizing the court. The scandal was not Mr. Kopyto's remarks about the apparent tendency of the courts to favour police in civil and criminal matters, but, rather, his conviction under this archaic and dangerous law.


Some Hon. Members:: Order! Order!


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member knows that it is inappropriate-


Mr. Forrestall:: No, he doesn't know.


Mr. Speaker:: -to attack in this Chamber a conviction by the court. If the Hon. Member wishes to attack the law, that is, of course, open to him. I would ask him to complete his statement keeping in mind the admonition of the Chair.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the law in question denies the defence of truth. It is a clear violation of Harry Kopyto's right to freedom of speech as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights. Harry Kopyto should have been the last person charged under this repressive law.


Some Hon. Members:: Order! Order!


Svend Johannes Robinson: To this end, I plan to introduce a Private Members' Bill to repeal this offence in the Criminal Code. As well, I call upon the federal Attorney General (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) to grant immediately, a full pardon and vacate the conviction of Harry Kopyto who has so courageously fought this battle against this unjust law on behalf of all Canadians.

November 19, 1986
Oral Questions
The scandal was in Harry Kopyto's conviction under this law.



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, spokesmen for Canada's mining industry and prospectors from Abitibi-Temiscamingue, Chapais and Chibougamau strongly urge the Governments of Quebec and Canada to retain the existing flow-through share provisions for the mining exploration sector.
For several months now I have been an active proponent of these provisions because they are important to northern Quebec.
As a result of discoveries made in 1985, nine projects will lead to productive operations within two to five years. Mr. Speaker, I can state that as a direct and indirect result of these flow-through shares, 5,000 permanent jobs will be created in the North within five years.
Mr. Speaker, before making any changes to tax shelters in the mining sector, the Governments of Quebec and Canada ought to bear in mind that such shelters can indeed prove to be an effective mechanism to tap the American market. Our tax system needs to be simplified, fair enough, but this should not signal the end of all tax shelters.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, Decima Research reports that to most Canadians protecting the environment is more important than saving jobs. Sixty-nine per cent of Canadians who were polled last June were willing to back moves to protect the environment, even if those measures affected employment. That survey revealed that most Canadians believe the risks of pollution are not worth the benefits to society or the economy.
All but 5 per cent of those surveyed said that Governments must get tougher with chemical companies. Seventy-five per cent said that chemical companies get away with too much. Sixty-five per cent favour jail for executives of companies which pollute the environment.
The strong desire of Canadians to protect the environment is good news. It is important news for municipal, provincial, and federal Governments. The Conservative Government has made many environmental promises. It is time now to deliver, in recognition of the values Canadians have articulated through Decima's poll.



TEXTILES AND CLOTHING


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak in favour of the current "Think Canadian" campaign. It is imperative that Canadians acquire the habit of buying Canadian-made products.
Every year we spend thousands of dollars to buy clothes which Canadian manufacturers market at competitive prices. Indeed our products are second to none when it comes to quality.
Each dollar spent on products made in this country spurs the economy and all Canadians stand to benefit.
This will make it possible to create and maintain employment for thousands of textile and clothing workers who will be able to keep the jobs they like, at which they are proficient, and which is their source of income.
So next time we go out shopping let us remember to "Think Canadian". All we need do is to check the labels to find out where the products come from and ask the store owners to point out those which have been made in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the earlier proceedings, I wish to bring to the attention of all Hon. Members that Question Period will now start and will carry on for 45 minutes.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I listened to him very closely last night on television when he attempted to explain why it was that the lobby group known as the American Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association knew what was in the legislation before Canadians knew. It seemed to me that last night he felt that his options were either to punch somebody in the nose, or to
November 19, 1986

call in the RCMP. Why is it that American lobbyists knew what was in the Minister's mind and what was in the legislation before the Consumer's Association of Canada knew?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, nobody knew what was in that Bill before it was presented to the House except for spokesmen for his Party and the New Democratic Party.
As I have indicated publicly, and discussed on many occasions, we have been consulting on the legislation since its draft was tabled last June. For example, I had consultations on September 5 with the National Pensioners & Senior Citizens Federation, the National Anti-Poverty Association, the Medical Reform Group. I had consultations on September 12 with the Consumer's Association of Canada. On October 14 1 had consultations with the Canadian Drug Manufacturers' Association, and the Pharmaceutical Association of Canada. On October 31 I had consultations with Dr. Harry Eastman. My office has discussed it with many people. We have been trying to improve the Bill. We came up with some improvements. Somebody may have guessed that they-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: But nobody knew what was in the Bill. If, in fact, some officials leaked it, then we will deal with them.


STATEMENT MADE BY DR. HARRY EASTMAN-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Americans had a good estimate of the contents of the Bill. Last night, even the Minister said: "I'm not surprised people were informed." Those were the Minister's words. The trouble is that Americans, not Canadians, were aware of the Minister's intentions.
Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Minister whether he agrees with Dr. Harry Eastman, whom he appointed Chairman of the Patented and Medicine Prices Review Board, when he claims that the purpose of the legislation is to increase costs for the consumer.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my office has been in contact with Dr. Eastman this morning. He is in agreement with me that both of us were misinterpreted and taken out of context by the CBC.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Dr. Eastman agrees with me-obviously the Liberals do not want to hear the truth.
Dr. Eastman agrees with me that there is nothing in this legislation that will cause the rise in the price of a drug by one
Oral Questions
cent: not old drugs, not new drugs, not pipeline drugs, not by one cent. Dr. Eastman agrees that he was misinterpreted and taken out of context by the CBC.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO DR. EASTMAN
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is a little hard to take it out of context when Dr. Eastman says this on CBC: "The answer is undoubtedly so. Indeed that's the purpose of changing the legislation". Now, how he can be taken out of context with his own words, I do not know.


Some Hon. Members:: Where is the question?


John Napier Turner: I will read the question. Mr. Speaker, they want the question. "But the very man Harvie Andre has appointed to head the Drug Price Review Board said there is no doubt in his mind that prices for new drugs will be higher."


Some Hon. Members:: Where is the question?


John Napier Turner: The answer is yes, that "is undoubtedly so. Indeed that's the purpose of changing the legislation".


Some Hon. Members:: Where's the question?


John Napier Turner: My question for the Minister is this. Does Dr. Eastman still have that job? Why does the Minister insist on denying that the purpose of the legislation was to please the Americans in the current free trade negotiations, and that the legislation will inevitably raise drug prices in this country, as Dr. Eastman said clearly last night?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: I hope by now it will have come to the Leader of the Opposition's notice that what he stated there was editorial opinion by the reporter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: They are the words.


Harvie Andre: Yes, Dr. Eastman is going to head up the Drug Price Review Board. The fact of the matter is that since 1969 every one of our partners in the western industrial world has been asking us to restore patent protection. The prices of drugs will not go up one cent as a result of this legislation. Help us get the legislation into committee, so I can show this to you and to everybody else who is interested.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 19, 1986
Oral Questions


STATEMENT MADE BY UNITED STATES INDUSTRY'S SPOKESMAN
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In last night's TV report, Mr. Stettler of the American multinationals said, and I quote: "The success of the Canadian system was and is a threat."
Why does the Minister favour a lobby group which has illegally tried to lessen competition, said that no-name drugs are inferior drugs, and has held a former Minister personally accountable for the deaths of thousands of people? Why does the Minister not favour the sick, the weak, and the elderly?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I favour the restoration of patent protection for drugs for the same reason that the past Liberal Government did when they announced their decision in that regard in June of 1983.
If there is going to be research in this important area of biotechnology and drugs, and it is foolhardy for Canada to exclude itself from this important area, there has to be patent protection provided. The rest of the world recognizes that. I wonder why the Hon. Member and her Party do not at this point in time, although they apparently did three years ago.


PROPOSED REVIEW BOARD'S PRACTICES
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: In answer to a question from our Leader, the Minister said that he improved the Bill. According to Mr. Stettler yesterday, they were not happy with the sanctions. They wanted to lighten the sanctions. He got what he wanted from this Government, the sanctions were lightened. Does the Minister know that the review board can now investigate only one drug, plus another one, instead of the whole company, as it was in the Cote Bill?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe as a matter of principle that punishments should match the offences more or less. 1 thought the punishments were excessive. As 1 have said publicly to Dr. Eastman and to anyone else who was interested, I am willing to discuss that. If in fact evidence can be presented that the sanctions need to be toughened up some, 1 am willing to consider those. I am not of a closed mind on that. However, I would hope the fundamental principle that the punishment should match the offence is a principle which Hon. Members could respect and understand.


FOREKNOWLEDGE OF LEGISLATION'S CONTENT CLAIMED BY AMERICAN LOBBYIST
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and it is on the same subject. Mr. C. Joe Stettler, the former head of the American drug company lobby which
got the Government to change its drug legislation, said on television last night that a week before the Minister introduced the Bill he knew of two precise changes which would be in it. When the Bill was introduced, lo and behold those precise changes emerged. Could the Minister explain to the House of Commons how this man, a resident outside Canada, knew before elected Members of Parliament what would be in the legislation?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I answered that question which was put by the Leader of the Opposition. I pointed out that the draft Bill was released at the end of June. I had discussions with a wide variety of groups, as did my office and a lot of my officials, to discuss ways in which it might be improved, amended, and adjusted. Those are consultations. During the course of consultations, one discusses things like that. People may make assumptions, but the only ones who had access to that Bill before it was brought into the House were the spokesman for the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North, and the spokesman for the Liberal Party, whom I briefed in advance as a matter of courtesy.


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister knows that the Members on this side of the House had a briefing about two hours before. This other gentleman, who is a United States citizen living outside Canada, was informed a week before. That is the big difference.


INQUIRY WHETHER LIE UTTERED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister. Yesterday the Minister said on television that anyone in Canada who suggested that the price of drugs would increase would be lying. Dr. Eastman, an expert in the field, said that this would happen. Is he a liar?

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I just answered that question to the Leader of the Opposition. My office was in consultation with Dr. Eastman this morning. He informs us that the CBC took his remarks out of context and that in fact he agrees with me and understands, as anyone with an open mind would understand, that there is no increase in price of any drug possible as a result of the changes which we are proposing. If the Hon. Member would co-operate and allow us to take this matter to committee, I will be happy to demonstrate it to him and to anyone else who is interested.


CBCINTERVIEW
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister to co-operate. I will ask him a very precise question. Perhaps he will explain to the House how Dr. Eastman could have been taken out of context. In part the transcript reads:
Will prices go up?
November 19, 1986

Eastman: The answer is undoubtedly so. Indeed that's the purpose of-the legislation.
How could that be taken out of context? Surely Dr. Eastman is saying what every person in the country knows- pensioners, retirees, consumer groups-that this legislation will raise prices. Why do you not withdraw the Bill like you should?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party knows that the use of the word "you", while it sometimes happens in the Chamber, is frowned upon.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I was on that program for about 20 seconds after 45 minutes of taping. It was spliced to produce a program which had about as much veracity as an episode of Dallas. The fact of the matter is that the only people who believe that the price of drugs is going to go up are those unfortunate persons who read the letter from the Leader of the New Democratic Party, in English only I might add, making that claim, which is false.


TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have another quote for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which could not possibly be edited:
Reporter: So there is no doubt in your mind as the chairman of this price review board that prices will rise.
Eastman: Yes, there is no doubt at all.
How could that be taken out of context?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that was the question my office raised with Dr. Eastman this morning.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: As Dr. Eastman pointed out, he tried to explain to the reporter, while he was talking about cash flows to the industry, possible reductions in prices and the delay in those reductions. He knows, as I know and as everyone who honestly looks at the situation knows, that prices will not go up by a single penny as a result of Bill C-22.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Minister suggesting that the exchange between the reporter and Dr. Eastman was edited and spliced? Does he not admit the integrity of that particular quote?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated, that particular program was by and large a fabrication designed to support-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Go back to Dallas.
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: There is one way in which this can be resolved. Let us pass the legislation, take it to committee, look at all these questions, and then let the people make the judgment after they have seen the facts and analyses we will be able to present in that forum.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO UNITED STATES TRADE NEGOTIATOR
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. He has told the House that Dr. Eastman was misquoted. Let me quote from the same program what Clayton Yeutter said, the American negotiator on free trade. When referring to the Bill, he said:
It may raise prices at the retail level of some of these products but better this than low retail prices based on piracy.
Was Clayton Yeutter misquoted? Does the Minister agree with Clayton Yeutter that what we have been doing is piracy?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what Clayton Yeutter thinks or says. However, I know the Bill will not raise the price of drugs by a cent. I know that we have a Direct Prices Review Board in place to ensure that this fundamental economic fact remains a reality. I know that we have a four-year policy review by Government. I know we are proposing a 10-year policy review by Parliament to check on these things. I know that 3,000 young scientists are anxious to have a research opportunity in Canada, which apparently the New Democratic Party does not want to see come to pass.


CONSUMER ASSOCIATION'S POSITION
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, why does the Minister continue to say that all the opposition is based upon a partisan approach when organizations such as the Consumers Association of Canada have come up with the strongest opposition to the Bill since it was tabled, having looked at it and having consulted or discussed it with the Minister? They reject all the arguments put forward by the Minister. Would the Minister explain that.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to the Hon. Member on I do not know how many occasions the facts of the Bill are clear to those who want to keep an open mind when they look at it. Some people are ideologically upset about the fact that there are private sector companies involved in health care. That is fine, if they have the conviction and want to argue it. However, let us get the Bill to committee. Let us look at it and its details. Let me present the analysis which I can present-


Some Hon. Members:: No way.


Harvie Andre: They are shouting "No way". They do not want the facts out. They know the facts will defeat their arguments.

November 19, 1986
1320_______________________________
Oral Questions INQUIRY CONCERNING UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the same Minister, as he might expect. In the same program which he says was a fabrication, there was another statement by the chief spokesman for the drug industry in the United States. He said: "I think we have made more of an effort recently to talk to the U.S. trade representative, our Department of Commerce, our Department of State, and to say this is a bad law for us." To what extent did the United States Government, through the interaction at the trade negotiations between the Department of External Affairs and the office of the Secretary of State, make representations after June that the Canadian Government change the patent law as the Minister has now introduced it?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was a Cabinet Minister in the Liberal Government which decided to change the patent law and restore patent protection in 1983.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: We did not.


Harvie Andre: The Member knows, if he is paying attention, that we have been under pressure from all of our trading partners since 1969.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Only four years.


Harvie Andre: Let me read just a bit from a letter dated September 24,	1986, from the British Pharmaceutical
Association, London. It is concerned that' the Canadian Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry.


INQUIRY CONCERNING POSSIBLE REPRESENTATIONS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, if there is any example of fabrication in this House, it has just been given by the Minister. There was no decision in 1983 by our Government to change the Patent Act. We established a commission of study to look at the entire state of the art.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Beatty:: Axworthy for leader.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member will put his question.


Lloyd Axworthy: I will put this question to the Minister because he did not answer it the first time. To what extent did the United States Government make direct representation during the trade negotiations or by other diplomatic means to
have the June draft of the Patent Bill altered to suit the kind of interest of the American drug industry?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): No one made representations to me either from the United States, through the trade office or through the External Affairs office or in any other way, Mr. Speaker. I consulted with groups in Canada on their reaction to the draft legislation. I recommended to my cabinet colleagues ways in which I thought the legislation could be improved. If, in fact, in committee Hon. Members are able to convince me that I am wrong in some of my suggestions, I am ready to listen to them. The recommended changes came out of consultations in which I and my office engaged, and from no one else.


FIRM'S ESTIMATE OF COST TO CONSUMERS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He keeps telling the House that there will no additional cost to Canadians. Is the Minister aware or familiar with a study conducted by a respected accountancy firm, Coopers & Lybrand, which estimates the cost to Canadian consumers, as a result of those amendments, will be in the area of $650 million?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I do not know who did that study but he, she, or they should be embarrassed. One of the other reasons I am anxious to get this Bill to committee is to look at those kinds of assumptions. The person who did that study would flunk Economics 101 if he or she presented it.
Let me repeat again that there is nothing in the legislation that will raise the price of drugs by one penny.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE COST IMPACT STUDIES
Neil Young: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is for the same Minister. Both the Minister's Department and the Minister of National Health and Welfare have conducted cost impact studies into this legislation. I applied for that information under Access to Information and it was denied under ministerial privilege or whatever. I ask the Minister again if he wants to come clean with Canadians, why does he not table these cost impact studies in the House so that all Canadians can take a look at how much it is going to cost?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the reason we have our parliamentary system of second reading debate and committee study. At committee we will look at all those cost estimates and we will look at all the price estimates. We will do that. If the Hon. Member is interested in having Canadians know the truth, he will co-operate in having that Bill moved to committee.


An Hon. Member:: What are you hiding?


John Edward Broadbent: Give us the information.

November 19, 1986


SHIPMENT OF HELICOPTER PARTS TO IRAN-RELEASE OF AMERICAN HOSTAGES
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East just reminded me that one should never send a boy to do a man's job.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Sit down then.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: My question is on another subject, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister I will return to the Deputy Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Where is the babysitter, Don?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member.


Donald James Johnston: In September, 1985, Mr. Speaker, four days after Pratt & Whitney received an order from Iran for helicopter parts, an American hostage was released. On November 2 of this year an American hostage was released approximately two weeks after Pratt & Whitney shipped helicopter parts to Iran. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with that chronology? Does the Government believe or suspect that there is a relationship between the shipments from Pratt & Whitney to Iran and the release of American hostages?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is suggesting some very serious motivations here, motivations which I do not share and which the Government does not share.


UNITED STATES-CANADA CONSULTATIONS INQUIRY
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has repeatedly over the last several days refused to answer a very straight question, namely, were there representations or consultations made by or with the American Government and the Canadian Government with respect to these export commissions for shipments from Pratt & Whitney to Iran? Did they take place?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question in the House on Monday, and the answer is no.
Oral Questions REVENUE CANADA


CONFIDENTIALITY OF TAX RETURNS-STATEMENT MADE BY MEMBER FOR SAINT-LEONARD-ANJOU
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Yesterday in the House the Member for St. Leonard-Anjou stated, as found on page 1275 of Hansard'.
At my request this morning a woman telephoned the Revenue Canada office in Montreal. She gave my name, my social insurance number, my address, my date of birth. She was able to get into my 1985 income tax return.
Has the Minister checked into the circumstances and can he indicate to the House if that is really what happened?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as the House would expect, I took the representation from my colleague very seriously. I did cause a very thorough inquiry to be made. As my colleague indicated, calls were made at 10.43 a.m. and at 10.59 a.m. Our Department has ways to authenticate and to find out which employee accessed every taxpayer's file. However, what my colleague from Saint-Leonard-Anjou failed to say is that there were three additional key elements of information supplied by the callers to authenticate the validity of the request. They were volunteered or requested and correctly provided by the caller. The information was on the Member's income tax return, and because of the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Act, I would not, and I know he would not want me to say what they were.
However, I believe that the record should be cleared, not to minimize the seriousness of what has occurred, but to point out to my colleague from Saint-Leonard-Anjou that under the circumstances he did not give the full story and in so doing has needlessly alarmed, I suggest to him with respect, millions of Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is quite apparent to Hon. Members that as a consequence of that question and answer the Hon. Member concerned is rising. I would think he probably has a question of privilege to raise. I want to advise Hon. Members that since the rules were changed questions of privilege are not taken at this time. I do want to assure the Hon. Member, however, that I will hear him later.
Is the Hon. Member rising on a supplemental question?


MINISTER S REPLY
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my supplemental question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Yesterday I said that a woman made a phone call, gave my social insurance number, my address and my date of birth, and had access to my income tax return for 1985. That is what I said exactly. The difference between what the Minister is saying and what I said-

November 19, 1986
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Hon. Member a question?


Alfonso Gagliano: Would the Minister not agree that the report he has is a matter of opinion and not exactly what was discussed between my source and his officials?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: No, Mr. Speaker, with respect, I would not agree. I am not attributing motives to my hon. friend any more than to suggest that on a matter this serious the full story ought to have been given. The information as given was incomplete in so far as any meaningful access to my friend's income tax form was concerned.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As he knows, the Hon. Member for Beaches has applied for the cost impact studies concerning the drug legislation under the Access to Information legislation. That was denied by ministerial discretion. In order to clear up this whole matter will the Minister assure the House today that he will table those cost impact studies in the House?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, they were denied because they are confidences of the Privy Council and I am unable to give out those studies as requested. However, I am able and more than willing to discuss all of those projections and cost estimates in committee as is intended with this kind of legislation. Why is the Hon. Member's Party not willing to go to committee to look at and analyse these questions if it is so confident in its position?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is so sure that there is not going to be an increase in the price of drugs by one cent, I assume he would want those studies tabled in the House so the people of Canada can see them. They are being hidden for political reasons. The Minister called the other studies a fabrication without ever seeing them. We in this House and the people of Canada want to see those studies tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


CANADA EMPLOYMENT CENTRES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Government has made claims about increased security. Therefore, can the Minister explain why there is a story today in the Kitchener- Waterloo Record which shows that this week an employee of the Canada Employment Centre in Kitchener lifted from that office microfiche files which covered virtually every Ontario worker who filed an unemployment insurance claim in recent years?


John Carnell Crosbie: A microfiching expedition.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, the only point this individual made is that he is not worthy of the trust placed in him by the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: He has also betrayed his thousands of coworkers across Canada who handle Government records each day securely and confidentially.


Sheila Maureen Copps: First we had tuna fish, now we have microfiche.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh!


SECURITY OF FILES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, how can the Deputy Prime Minister slough this off when, over a year ago, the union located at this Centre held a meeting with the Hon. Member for Kitchener in which the specific issue of security of files was raised? That was a meeting held on September 5, 1985. Until this week those concerns about security have been ignored by the Government.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, an investigation is ongoing. We have to rely on the integrity of our employees to safeguard sensitive information. I want to assure the House that every effort will be made to find the individual and do what is appropriate.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said that these cost studies are being kept from the House for Privy Council reasons. Surely the Minister would be prepared to recognize that it is precisely because of the importance of these
November 19, 1986

studies that he should be prepared to release them to Canadians so they can make a judgment on whether his charges of fabrication are correct or not?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the reason the Hon. Member and I and others were elected is to act in the best interests of our constituents. We have a procedure for doing that. We have second reading and then committee study. In committee we look at all of the questions raised by the Hon. Member and others. We analyse them. It is an opportunity for us, as the people's representatives, to make a proper judgment and then divide in the House. I would like to proceed with that centuries old tradition. It is an honourable way to go. Why will the Hon. Member and his Party not co-operate?


REQUEST THAT MINISTER PROMISE TO RELEASE STUDIES
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his lesson in parliamentary procedure.


Henry Perrin Beatty: You needed it.


Steven W. Langdon: However, is he prepared to prove the points he has made today by promising the committee and the House that these studies will be released? He knows, as I know-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that the question he is posing has been asked several times. The Hon. Minister.


Harvie Andre: You took the words right out of my mouth, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how many times I have to repeat the answer before Hon. Members will accept it. The answer to his question is the same answer that I have given to the same question the three, four or five times it has been asked by members of his Party.


NARCOTICS
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, drug abuse in both schools and the workplace is a serious concern. In my constituency a group known as the Lambton Families in Action has been fighting this problem through a program of information and education since February, 1982. To this group, our Government's commitment in the Throne Speech to bring forward a national drug strategy was reason to celebrate.
Given the Government's commitment to the strategy of education and interception, can the Minister of Health inform the House and interested groups across Canada when further details and information on this program will be forthcoming?
Oral Questions


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member. I am sure most Members of the House would agree with him that the strategy announced in the Speech from the Throne has been welcomed by parents and others. The strategy has a number of components. The major one, which has to be stressed and which is not yet complete because of the consultations which have to take place, is that of education. Quite frankly, that is my emphasis. There are other components dealing with the justice system and others. They have their part to play. I hope we will be ready to make announcements concerning further developments, after those consultations, at the end of January or February of next year.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to my hon. friend, the Deputy Prime Minister. On several occasions in the recent past he has boasted in this House about the good things the Government has in store to help the faltering economy of northern Ontario. We welcome good things from any source. Is the Minister willing and able today to tell the House exactly what is in the recovery package for northern Ontario which was alluded to following a Progressive Conservative caucus meeting in Sudbury just a few weeks ago?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do that. First, this Government has recognized the difficulties in northern Ontario, the uniqueness of the region, and there are at least seven possible initiatives at which we are looking. They are to establish a federal economic development committee for northern Ontario, to transfer some federal agencies and services related to northern Ontario, to dedicate program moneys to northern Ontario, to establish a stabilization program for forestry and mining, to invest in northern Ontario schemes, to give special tax treatment to equity investors, to strengthen marketing assistance companies in the region and to encourage development of a strategic partnership.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


B. Keith Penner: We will have to absorb that, Mr. Speaker. I had the impression that those were directions rather than details.

November 19, 1986
Oral Questions


UNITED STATES DUTY ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER-EFFECT ON NORTHERN ONTARIO COMMUNITIES
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that since the imposition of the countervail tariff on softwood lumber some sawmills in northern Ontario have had their sales reduced by as much as 90 per cent? Has the Minister anything at all in mind for those communities which have lost hundreds of jobs because of the reduction in sales of softwood lumber? These communities include Terrace Bay, Hearst, White River and Longlac.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Hon. Member. I can assure him that I in no way want to belittle the seriousness of this issue of the difficulties in northern Ontario, nor the problem to which he alludes. I think the Hon. Member is aware, however, that discussions have been going on between the provincial Ministers and the federal Minister with respect to the strategy which will be employed to fight this countervail tariff. A First Ministers' conference will take place in Vancouver during the next couple of days. This will be a topic for serious discussion there.
Consistent with the Government's approach to governing the country, a joint federal-provincial approach will be taken. I am sure the strategies will be discussed in detail in Vancouver during the next two days.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Privatization. How can she justify the sale of a Crown corporation that is in good shape and making a profit, in a sector where in other countries, such services are provided by the public sector? If she wants to bring prices down, why not urge Teleglobe to cut its prices, which can be done just as well by a public enterprise?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I have stated a number of times before that the principle of privatization is that when there is no longer public policy to be served, we seek greater economic benefits by having companies owned in the private sector. This is a good and profitable company. I think it has a very dynamic future in the private sector. It is the policy of the Government to ensure that the economic benefits for the employees of this company, as well as for all of Canada, are best realized in this way.


EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN BENEFITS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister admit that Teleglobe employees, who presently have a good pension plan, will be disadvantaged through a sale? Will she undertake to ensure that employees will not be worse off than they presently are with regard to their pension plan under a new employer?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed the pension issue with the employees. There are avenues open for the employees to continue to carry on conversations with company management and ourselves about the future of the company. Contrary to the employees being worse off, they will be much better off in a dynamic, growing company. The people to ask are the employees of de Havilland, Canadair and Canadian Arsenals, all of whom have been buoyant and optimistic about their future.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Does the Minister not agree that, after studying the problems of the pharmaceutical industry for two years, the Eastman Commission found that compulsory licensing has had no visible effect on the profitability of the pharmaceutical industry? After two years of study Mr. Eastman found that the pharmaceutical industries' profit exceeded that for all the manufacturing sector. He found that the former Patent Act saved the consumers of this country $211 million a year.
If the Government agrees with the findings of the Eastman Commission, what is it doing introducing a Bill which will give a period of exclusivity twice as long as that recommended by Eastman?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member acknowledged that Eastman recommended change from the existing system. 1 would like to quote the words of the Hon. Member, the Liberal health critic. He said: "Higher prices might be justified if it led to more drug research in Canada. The proposed price increase should have a minor effect on consumers". I will assure the Hon. Member that we will have a lot more research in Canada and that there will be no price increase.


COMPENSATION OFFERED TO PROVINCES
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, how can the
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs stand in this House and say that the cost of drugs will not rise by one penny
November 19, 1986

when the Minister has offered $100 million a year in compensation to the provinces for anticipated increases in the cost of drugs?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it will take too much of Question Period to explain all of that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: I hope the Hon. Member was careful in his use of language when he talked about cost to the provinces. I hope he was careful to listen to what 1 have been saying all along, that the price of drugs will not go up by a penny.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: You don't know what you are talking about.


Harvie Andre: If he thinks about it for a little while, maybe he will understand.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: You don't understand the Bill.


Mr. Rossi:: You never understood it.


DEREGULATION-INQUIRY WHETHER QUEBEC NATURAL GAS CONSUMERS WILL BENEFIT FROM LOWER PRICES AT SAME TIME AS OTHER PROVINCES
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister announced on November 1 of this year that natural gas prices will be deregulated, arguing that this would be beneficial to Canadian consumers.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary give the House the assurance that manufacturing industries and consumers in Quebec will benefit from a reduction in the price of natural gas at the same time as the other provinces?


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, deregulation went into effect on November 1 which allowed buyer and seller to negotiate the price of natural gas freely without Government intervention. This added competition and supply should result in lower prices to all consumers in Canada and a better deal for the producers.
Privilege-Mr. Domm AGRICULTURE


EFFECTIVENESS OF AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture who is aware that many farmers from Eston, Saskatchewan, have been trying for five years to get $1 million in damages from Dow Chemical over the use of the chemical Tordon 202C which proved ineffective and damaging to their crops. In 1980 Dow Chemical said that the problem appears "to be that our present formulation, even at the high rate of application, does not give adequate control of volunteer rape seed, stink weed or wild mustard".
What plans does the Minister have for more effective policing of agricultural chemicals which are not performing as claimed on their labels?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I take the Hon. Member's question seriously. I take it more in the form of a representation. I must confess that I am not fully aware of all the details in this case. This is a representation which is not made all that often. I know that there were a series of problems prior to the Government's decision to change the labelling of chemicals. That has eliminated and alleviated a good number of problems.


REQUEST THAT DEPARTMENT MONITOR FARMERS' COMPLAINTS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell the House whether he is ready to make some changes so that complaints from farmers about farm chemicals can be monitored and evaluated by his Department rather than requiring farmers to go through very expensive court procedures against huge multinationals?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is yes. We are always anxious to change policies and programs for the better. This case may well require a change or amendment to the appropriate legislation. We will study that. The answer to the Hon. Member's question is definitely yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise Hon. Members that I have received notice of several questions of privilege which I will proceed to now.
*	* v


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege affects every Member in the House and the very nature of Parliament. The reasons given to the House of Commons and the press for rejection of various private

November 19, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Domm
Members items as being votable seriously erodes my opportunity to represent my constituents while taking away from Parliament a right that it has always had. It is in direct violation of Standing Order 96(1).


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will know that when a Member rises on a question of privilege, it may not always be a question of privilege. That is a matter on which the Chair must rule. However, it is usually a grievance, and I would suggest to Hon. Members that when a Member is speaking to a question of privilege, Hon. Members should that Member the courtesy of attention.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: During my seven years as a Member of Parliament I have had the opportunity during four of those years to be Deputy House Leader responsible for Private Members' Business. I have never seen such a flagrant disregard for Standing Orders, and the taking away of the rights of Members of Parliament, as has been evidenced by recent decisions of a committee of the House, set up by Members of Parliament, to review votable items as they come before that committee.
The committee said that my motion was rejected because it did not have the power to: "empower the Justice Committee to study the motion". I want to remind the House that empowering a Standing Committee to review and report to Parliament is an inalienable right that all Members of Parliament have enjoyed over the years. This committee that was set up by private Members to represent their concerns has essentially told members from the New Democratic Party, members from the Progressive Conservative Party and members from the Liberal Party that we no longer have the right as Parliamentarians to vote and send what we believe is an urgent and pressing matter to a Standing Committee for study and report back to Parliament.
Let me explain how important this issue is to me, and I am sure to all Members of the House, regardless of which Party they represent. I am not in a debate with the Government I am not in a debate with my colleagues who are all back-benchers.
I am not looking to the front-benches of Government to stand up and tell me why this is happening. They have never had control over Private Members' Business and they are not intended to have any control over Private Members' Business in the House. It is a private Members' committee that went to the media with a private members' issue to give the reasons why it has not accepted a motion before the decision was even tabled in the House. That back-bencher had been assured under the Standing Orders that the committee would enter into full consultation with that back-bencher in determining the priority for a votable item, having regard to that Member's motion.
A member of that Standing Committee is quoted in The Ottawa Citizen on Friday, November 7, as saying:
The controversial bill was also thrown out because "it simply empowered the justice committee to do what it already has the power to do-"
That was before the decision was tabled in the House and before the Member was advised of any of the reasons why that item was turned down by that committee. That is a flagrant disregard for the authority and power of a Member of the House to represent not only his constituents but all Canadians.
Let us consider other motions on the Order Paper. Motion No. 12 in the name of the New Democratic Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), states:
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General be empowered to study the question-
That motion is on the Order Paper. The purpose of this committee is to serve the back-benchers of the House. It says that Parliament no longer has the authority to direct the Standing Committee to study and report on an issue.
Not only should New Democrats reconsider whether some of their motions are eligible for a vote, Progressive Conservatives also have motions, such as Motion No. 25 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Hardey). That motion states:
That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be empowered to study and consider-
I believe we have lost a right and I want to move a motion in the House that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to determine whether Parliament, not Government, has the right to refer an item to a Standing Committee for study and report. I say to Hon. Members that if we lose this fight on this very important issue, as back-benchers in the House of Commons we lose that for which the McGrath committee fought. The Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper), who is sitting here as a backbencher, knows as well as every Member in the House, that it was the intent of the McGrath report to give more authority to Parliament and back-benchers, and less authority to Government. We have a role to play in the decision-making process of this nation. If we allow our peers to tell us that we do not have this authority, then we are violating Standing Order 96(1).
In my motion , I also want the House to consider the terms of reference for the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business itself, found in Standing Order 36(1 )(a), which provides no evidence to support the reasons given for rejecting my motion. Standing Order 36(l)(a) states:
In making its selection, the Committee shall not take into account the number of Members jointly seconding an item, but shall allow the merits of the items alone to determine the selection-
I and other Members of the House appeared before that Standing Committee. We gave all of the reasons why we thought our Bills or motions met the terms and conditions of the Standing Order. Not once was I challenged that my Bill did not meet the terms and conditions as outlined in that Standing Order.
That committee which represents us and which is the only committee we have to take our case to Parliament, met in camera. Only members of the committee can attend to discuss the reasons why an item should or should not be voted on in
November 19, 1986

the House of Commons. That committee then went to the media before it consulted on its decision, and before it tabled it in the House.
Not only was this reported in The Ottawa Citizen, the Toronto Star phoned and asked me to respond to the committee chairman who said: "Domm's Bill was rejected because the committee did not have the power to empower the justice committee to study the Bill." This means that New Democratic Members, Liberal Members and Conservative Members should check their motions and Bills on the Order Paper, because by virtue of an in camera decision made in committee and discussed with the press without consulting Members of Parliament they have been ruled out of order. No longer do we have the power to refer these matters to Standing Committees.
This is without a doubt a breach of Parliamentary privilege. Parliament has always had the right to refer items to committee and empower it to study and report back.
1 repeat that the committee has exceeded its own terms of reference by doing this. It has detrimentally affected the role of all back-benchers in the House. A basic and elementary right of all Members of Parliament is their right to refer pressing and urgent matters to an appropriate committee for extensive review and analysis. This inalienable right exceeds all Party lines and goes to the root of what an individual Hon. Member can do for his or her constituents.
It follows that the Standing Committees of this House remain a fundamental method of allowing not just Members of Parliament but all Canadians a degree of access to the decision-making process. I have personally been denied even the possiblity of having a subject of extreme importance to my constituents referred to a committee, drawn out of a drum and brought to a votable item. The objective of having the subject voted on has been denied.
Beauchesne's Fifth Edition is quite clear with respect to the rules governing Standing Committees. I refer to Citation 621(2):
A committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the Order of Reference.
Nowhere in the order of reference for the Committee on Private Members' Business does it state that this particular committee cannot refer a subject such as that contained in my motion to an appropriate Standing Committee for investigation.
The inspirational reforms of the House of Commons arrived at by the McGrath report are adamant in their concerns over the eroding role of back-bench Members of Parliament.
It was the committee's belief, and one which I am sure is shared by all Hon. Members of the House, that the committee sytem could provide a means of enhancing the position of Members of Parliament and also represented a viable method of democratizing the decision-making process.
Privilege-Mr. Domm
Pages 21 and 22 of the report state in part:
More use could also be made of existing Standing Order 72(1) which allows, as an alternative procedure for introducing Bills, a motion to appont a committee to prepare and bring in a Bill. Such an Order of Reference could be given by the House upon adoption of a motion presented by a private Member, during Private Members' Business, to have a committee bring in a Bill on a particular subject.
The report concluded by adopting Recommendation 4.12 which states:
We recommend wider use of parliamentary committees to review draft legislation, to conduct general inquiries when policy choices have not yet been made, and to bring in draft Bills.
The objective of the McGrath committee and its attempts at reform were based on the need to enhance the role of Members of Parliament. It is obvious from its conclusions that one of the most appropriate ways to accomplish this task is through a renewed and more effective parliamentary committee system. The decision as reported by the Chairman of the Committee on Private Members' Business undermines the spirit of these reforms and consequently impairs my ability as a Member of Parliament.
Therefore, with all due respect, I urge that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure for a full parliamentary investgation into the right of Parliament to empower Standing Committees to study and report to Parliament on items arising under Private Members' Business.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I will not take too much time on this matter. The committee, when it was formed, received a mandate, we might call it, from the McGrath committee, with its acceptance by the Government, to deal with private Members' bills and motions. There were no instructions, not even a guideline given as to how we select these bills or motions. Consequently, the committee on its own developed a rule or guideline of nine items by which we would help private Members draft their bills and motions. Each Hon. Member was sent a copy, and I might say the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) met the nine conditions set forth.
The difficulty we had at committee at the time is that we unanimously agreed we were not empowered to instruct another committee to take a certain course of action, particularly when that committee could take that course of action on its own. That was the position we held to. Further, the advice we received from our procedural people reinforced that position. I understand there is a division of opinion with the procedural experts as to whether we do or do not have the power to empower another committee to look into matters such as this, but that was the unanimous decision of our committee. We believe the matter really should go back to the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure for review.
It is difficult to deal with this matter because we meet in camera. I cannot really reveal in the House of Commons what we discussed in camera, otherwise, why have an in-camera meetings? That is a difficulty we have.

November 19, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Domm


An Hon. Member:: What deals are cooked up there?


William James Kempling: My colleague asked what deals are cooked up. I think that is a very unfair comment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I indicated to Hon. Members, there seems to be a grievance here, and feelings are fairly tense. However, I would ask all Hon. Members not to impute motives to other Hon. Members, and that applies to all of us.


William James Kempling: I might also say we are not asked by the regulations laid down in the establishment of the new Private Members' Rules and Regulations that we disclose why we accept a motion or a Bill, or why we do not. We are not required to do that, so we have not done so.
We believe, Sir, that the Committee on Justice and Solicitor General has the power in itself to undertake the study on its own. Why did we come to this decision? We draw 20 Bills and we can only select up to six Bills.


Mr. Vankoughnet:: Only five are selected.


William James Kempling: If the Hon. Member wishes to speak on this matter, 1 wish he would do so later.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Burlington.


William James Kempling: We pick up to six bills or motions-


William John Vankoughnet: Five.


William James Kempling: -which are drawn from the hopper. I should say the last time we went through this procedure we picked three because there will be a further draw after we dispose of 10 items. What would be the point of pulling another 10 items if the Hon. Members felt there was no possibilty of that item coming before the House of Commons for a vote? Therefore, we chose them on that basis. We selected three the first time. We selected five when we disposed of 10 of the motions or bills we have before us. We will select another 10, and one of those may possibly go on for a vote.
I want you to understand as well, Mr. Speaker, that we are breaking new ground. The first batch of bills we had before us in the first session were basically bills and motions some of which had been in the hopper for years. Some of them were flawed procedurally, some were flawed legally and some were flawed constitutionally. But those bills were put into the hopper for the first draw. Most of the bills have been redeposited. Some of them have just been changed from bills to motions. It is a learning process for Hon. Members. I believe that as we go down the road we will eventually begin to produce better motions and better bills. At the disposal of the committee is the advice of legal and drafting experts. We urge Hon. Members to seek out the advice of these experts to ensure that when their Bills come before us they are in the best possible form.
As far as the committee is concerned, and my colleague the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) may wish to comment on this point, if the matter is referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, we would be pleased to hear it. We would also be pleased to hear the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) when the committee next meets, if he wishes to appear before us.
I cannot comment on the leak to the press. That is a separate issue. I was as shocked as all Hon. Members when I picked up The Ottawa Citizen on the morning the committee reported to the House to find comments regarding the report. At the final meeting of the committee the members of the committee authorized me to speak on their behalf to the media after the report was tabled. I did this. I spoke to a number of journalists outside the Chamber with respect to this issue. I might add that it is the only issue about which they were really concerned.
I leave the matter in your hands, Mr. Speaker. Numerous rulings have been made in the past about the business of committee members and whether or not Speakers should intervene. I will not read those rulings into the record, since I am sure Your Honour has them at your fingertips. I think this is a serious matter. It is a grievance. It should be referred to another committee which could perhaps give us more direction with respect to how we should proceed in the future.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm). My remarks are not with respect to the merits of his motion, since obviously that is not my role at this time.
There are two issues before us to consider. The first is with respect to the media leak. I was fortunate enough to have had my item chosen. Like many others I learned of it on the radio of my automobile while driving home on Friday afternoon instead of learning about it through the regular means by which Members normally find out about such matters. I found that procedure to be somewhat unusual even though it was good news for me personally.
The second item I wish to bring to the attention of the Chair is the matter of a committee sitting in camera. Citation 628 of Beauchesne's defines in camera sittings of committees. As 1 understand it, and as has been explained to me privately by the Hon. Member for Peterborough, the in camera sittings with respect to this committee were somewhat different from those associated with other committees of the House. What I mean to say is that under the definition of in camera sittings in Beauchesne's a committee has the right to exclude strangers at any time. I do not know of an in camera sitting of a committee which excluded Members of the House from attending. The incidents described to me by the Hon. Member for Peterborough, although briefly, lead me to believe that Members were not permitted to attend this particular in camera sitting. I have a problem with the procedures of a committee which create a
November 19, 1986

precedent by which Members would be prevented from attending an in camera sitting of that committee, notwithstanding the good intentions that were obviously there in this case. It is a dangerous precedent, one which should be discontinued.
Just as any Member of the House of Commons has the right to enter the Chamber, every Member has the right to attend the meeting of a committee of the House. If we are not extended that right then I strongly suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that an individual Member would be denied the powers given to him or her upon his or her election to the House. It is really that part of the deliberations of a committee which I find the most objectionable, notwithstanding the fact that there were good intentions involved in this case, at least I believe they were, knowing the calibre of the Hon. Members who sit on this committee. Notwithstanding that good intention there should be a review of this procedure by the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure to ensure that there will never be a repeat of the process whereby a committee of the House denies a Member of the House either directly or indirectly the right to be present at any sitting of a committee.
Those are the brief comments that I wish to make. I believe they are important since they concern the rights of every Member of this House, regardless of political stripe. My comments have not been made either for or against the proposition which was considered by the committee in terms of the Hon. Member for Peterborough. There will be another time to discuss that. My comments are made to express the view that all Members of the House should have the power and privilege to participate in any process of this House, which includes attending the deliberations of a parliamentary committee.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks both as a member of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business and as a member of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons which made the recommendation for this particular process. If I understand the main point of contention put forward by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm), it is that in some way the committee endangered the power of the House of Commons to refer matters to committee. That is the substance of Standing Order 96(1) about which he spoke. I would like to speak to that matter first.
The judgment of the committee with respect to which of the 20 items that came before it were to be selected as votable in my judgment does not, either in theory or in practice, impair the ability of the House to refer matters to committee. We did not not choose the Hon. Member's motion because we did not think the House had that power. We had to consider that motion, among others. It was our view that, because of the very reforms which the Hon. Member cites, brought about as a result of the McGrath Committee, committees now have the power to do things which before they only had the power to do when the House empowered them to do so. For this reason, I
Privilege-Mr. Domm
suggest to the Hon. Member that when he invokes the McGrath reforms he is not being completely accurate. It is precisely because of those reforms that the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General has the power to do what it would have been asked to do had the Member's motion been made a votable item and passed in the House.
One of the matters that the committee has to consider, and which we have made no secret we were considering, is that there is a limited number of items which can come to a vote in the House. This is part of the criterion, a public criterion known to all Members of Parliament, which is to say, that we must ask, is there any other way that this matter can come before the House? Is there any other way that either a committee of the House or the House itself can consider this matter?
It is certainly true of what would have been the result of the Hon. Member's motion being passed by this House that that could happen in a number of other ways and that the Justice Committee itself could decide to proceed with that type of investigation.
I say to the Hon. Member, who makes the point about Standing Order 96(1), that I do not think, Mr. Speaker, you can consider that to be a valid point. The power of the House to do that remains. The power of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business remains to choose a similar motion in some other context, if it felt it should do that. So nothing in principle has been endangered whatsoever.
A number of other things have been mentioned, and with the Chair's indulgence I would like to touch on them briefly. The point was made that Members whose items were not selected as votable items, or in the case of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) whose item was chosen, did not find this out before it was tabled in the House. I do not remember that there were any complaints about this type of thing the last time, when people found out which items had been selected when the report was tabled in the House. As I understand it, there is no obligation on the part of the committee to give advance notice to Members as to the fate of their Bills. That is what reporting in the House is all about. That is when people find out.
With respect to the question of in camera meetings, I acknowledge that it is an exceptional procedure. As far as I know, no Members sought to be present at those in camera meetings. There are many decisions made around here, perhaps not committee decisions, but in the final stages of drafting a report the committee meets in camera, and that is common procedure. That is basically what we are doing when, after having heard all the Members, we get down to the business of deciding what our final report will be.
I suggest to you that as one of the people who was involved in the reform this system will not work without in camera meetings. Others may argue that it is not working, and that is

November 19, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Domm
fair enough. But it will not work, Mr. Speaker, if there is no opportunity for an in camera meeting. I think it is unfortunate that Members have not respected the judgment of the committee. The Member for Peterborough feels very strongly about this issue, but I think he has done the process of reform and private Members' business a great disservice by bringing it up in this way.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 am sure that the Hon. Member does not wish to cast any aspersions on the Hon. Member for Peterborough.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I also want to indicate that I am a member of the selection committee for Private Members' Bills.
I will commence by saying that inherited by Canada from the British parliamentary system is the division of law. We have the politicians who write law, the police who enforce law, and the courts who interpret law. It is incumbent upon those who write law to write it precisely. It cannot be left to the police, or to the courts, to try to guess what the writer of law meant. There must be precision on how a motion or a piece of legislation is set forward.
In the setting forth of the case by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm), he asserted that Members of Parliament as private Members no longer have the right to refer to or ask a committee to make a study. I submit that this is inaccurate. The fact is that the Hon. Member for Peterborough did not ask that the committee undertake a particular study. What he did do precisely, and I read it, is to ask that the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General be empowered to study and report.
Sir, the fact of the matter is that the committee is empowered to do so today. In the changes that came about as a result of the McGrath Report we no longer require that there be a reference from a cabinet Minister to a committee for it to undertake a study. Within the concept of law, what the Hon. Member for Peterborough has asked the committee to do is something that it already has the power to do. In effect, his motion was redundant.
The other observation I would make is that the Hon. Member, in putting forward his case that his privilege had been denie,d indicated that his Bill met the criteria. While I submit that it did not for the reason I have previously stated, namely that it was redundant, that observation in and of itself is not a criterion for its acceptance.
The committee receives 20 motions, pieces of legislation, or combinations thereof from which it will accept up to 6. Given the hypothetical situation where the committee receives 20 which are eligible in terms of criteria, by the requirements placed upon the committee, it cannot accept all 20, because it is restricted by regulations to accept only up to 6. Therefore, the other condition that the Hon. Member for Peterborough sets before us again does not bear on the argument. The
committee has to ascertain whether the motion or legislation is acceptable on other grounds and for reasons of other merit.
Having said that, I am sure that committee members are all offended by the fact that there was a breach and that this information ended up in public sources before it was tabled in the House. Mr. Speaker, that concerns us all and ought to concern us all.
Whether or not this matter should be studied, and whether or not this should or should not be done in camera, I submit that we are new in this practice of trying to extend our parliamentary practices to enhance the power of private Members. To that extent, openness is always encouraged, even though there are reasons in this decision-making process for there not to be a continuing and ongoing battle with those who petitioned for their legislation and motions during the decision process to have to continue that process.
Nevertheless, if in your judgment there is a benefit in this issue being studied further, I would certainly be agreeable to doing that. But I cannot accept, on the basis that I have already given, that privilege has in fact been breached.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to support with all the power and force at my disposal the representation made by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm), which in pith and substance is that his privileges as a Member of the House of Commons have been adversely affected by the process followed by the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business.
I wish to focus attention not on the membership of that standing committee or its method of operation, but on the rights of the Member for Peterborough which represent the rights of all Members of the House. At the same time, I wish to express my gratitude to you, Mr. Speaker, for hearing what I think is a vital matter to all Members of the House here present and for the future.
In this process of reform what has happened is that the system has been changed. Under the British parliamentary system, it is the ancient right of a Member of Parliament to introduce in the House of Commons specific matters of interest to the Member, his constituents, and hopefully to all Canadians. What the Member can do is to present a motion or, a Private Members' Bill, and there may be other processes which he can commence in the House of Commons. In the case of a Bill, and in the case of a motion, the Standing Orders prescribe the process and procedure that is to be followed. The House of Commons in its wisdom has added an addendum to that time honoured centuries' old system which involves a reference to a standing committee of the House of Commons. That addendum changes the nature of the whole process.
One can no longer proceed in the normal course with a motion or with a Private Member's Bill. In order to be successful in the new system, one must gain the support and the judgmental decision of the Standing Committee on Private
November 19, 1986

Members' Business. Otherwise, one might as well forget about one's Private Member's Bill or motion. It will be lost in priority to Members who have been given the status of votable items. That is why a Member's privileges are affected by the actions of the committee.
Who cares who is on the committee or what decisions they make? What matters is that a Member can no longer process these matters of Private Members' Business in the way a Member could prior to the changes. Mr. Speaker, that is what you must focus your attention on-what has happened to the private Member in this process.
I do not need to add anything to the words of the Hon. Member for Peterborough. He has explained fully his situation. He had what could be considered an appropriate item for action by the House of Commons. Many others have had similar items. However, the committee has intervened in a process which has been in force for centuries in the British Parliament and side-tracked his motion. It put it on the dump heap. It will no longer be of any real interest because an adjudication has been made. That is why his privileges are affected. That is what happens to any Member who is subjected to the scrutiny of the committee and does not receive a favourable judgment. That is why someone should look at the process and ensure that the rights of Members are protected in all situations.
I said that I do not think the membership or processes of the committee are at issue in this matter of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Peterborough. However, from personal experience I want to make two points which have been raised in the debate by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and by others. There is absolutely no justification for in camera sessions. I cannot agree more with my colleague who said that unless the light of day shines on any parliamentary process, it is worth nothing. One cannot meet behind closed doors in any public forum, especially not in the Parliament of Canada. It may present difficulties. It may work to the disadvantage of Members who have their proposals criticized, but the whole purpose of the Parliament of Canada is to make all aspects of its operations open.
I also want to point out that Standing Order 36 is very clear on some of these matters. First, a Member who has a proposal selected by the committee must be consulted under the rules. They cannot brush it aside and say, "We are going to meet and decide; we do not like this proposal". They have to consult with the Member. It is not a matter of privilege. It is not a matter of saying, "Be here at ten o'clock or lose your chance", if one is down in New York and cannot come before the committee. That is the requirement of the rules; consultation is required. A second point which is very clear under the rules is that it is the merits of the items alone which determine whether they should be selected at the committee.
What does that mean? I do not know if it can be cited in the context of a question of privilege, but it is very clear to me. One looks at the item and, if it is a good item and it is worth the attention of the House, it should be brought to the
Privilege-Mr. Domm
attention of the House. I cannot imagine how one can work procedures, other availabilities, and other forums into that decision-making process on the merits of the matter. One can do other things with a motion or a Bill. One can advertise it or put it in the newspaper. However, this is the Parliament of Canada. The purpose of the exercise is to get it before the House, get the attention of Members on it, and get the matter decided upon by the House of Commons. Anything that stands in the way of that ultimate end affects the privileges of a Member of Parliament. If it affects a Member in an adverse or unfair way, it is a proper matter for study and adjudication by the House of Commons.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to enter into this discussion for a couple of reasons, one being that I was a member of the McGrath task force and was involved in the drafting of this process. When the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) first addressed the Chair, there were two elements in his case. However, since that time it is like the pebble having been dropped into the pond, and there have been ever-widening ripples. I want to deal with a couple of the ripples as well as the substance of the Hon. Member's intervention.
I find the whole discussion of the matter of in camera meetings a little unusual. It has been a long accepted practice of the House of Commons and it is very important to the House. I would argue that to take it away would put the various committees in a very difficult spot when it comes to drafting of reports, such as the Board of Internal Economy, the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services, and various other committees studying matters in camera around here. I would argue that this particular committee certainly has a justification for holding its final decision meeting in camera, in that any other Member who attends and has a Bill or motion before the committee would obviously be in a conflict of interest position. That must be taken into account.
The second ripple with which I wanted to deal is the argument made by my hon. friend who spoke prior to my intervention. He indicated that somehow Hon. Members' rights had changed in a negative way in terms of their Bills and motions since there were reforms to Private Members' Business. That escapes me completely.
As I understand it, those Bills and motions can proceed much as they did before. In addition, an Hon. Member has the right, opportunity, and chance to have the motion go one step further, that is, to a vote or decision of the House of Commons. As all of us know from practice, it was a very rare circumstance.
I should like to deal with the substance of the intervention of the Hon. Member for Peterborough. I do not believe he has a point of privilege. However, I think there is a serious point of order here and perhaps a role which the Speaker will want to play in terms of advising the House or making a reference to a committee, if that is the route the Speaker chooses.

November 19, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Domm
I do not think the Hon. Member has a question of privilege. Although comments released to the press on an in camera meeting have time and time again been a grievance or a point of anger for many members of committees and Members of the House of Commons, I do not believe a precedent has ever been established to determine that it is a case of privilege.
That brings me to the second point raised by the Member, namely, whether or not the particular committee has the right to instruct another committee to take a certain action. It is at this point that I think we have a couple of difficulties. It is my understanding that some Members, in the drafting of their Bills and motions, have been given the advice that they should use the word "empower". I also understand that it is the word "empower" that is causing the procedural difficulties.
I can understand the difficulty. In a sense the Hon. Member's motion which is of concern to the House today, in using the word "empower", is asking the committee to do something which it already has the power to do. However, it is very important for the House to establish and the membership to understand that a private Member has every right, through the private Members' process that has been established, begin the process of instructing a committee to take a certain action. Obviously the individual Member cannot make that instruction. The committee on selection of Private Members' Bills cannot make that instruction. The only way there can be that instruction is when there is a decision for the vote. The House then divides and gives the instruction. It is not the private Member and it is not the committee dealing with Private Members' Bills that gives the instruction. It is only the House of Commons that gives that final instruction to a committee.
I believe there are two problems with that section. One concerns the word "empower". If it is causing procedural difficulties, I think the word has to be addressed. It is something I should like to see the Chair address. Second, it is very important to establish clearly that the House of Commons retains the right to instruct any committee to take any action it sees fit. That process can be begun by a private Member's intervention in the form of a Bill or motion which goes into the draw, is drawn, goes through the proper committee process, and then goes to the House of Commons.


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the particular standing committee, and I read in the newspaper on the West Coast the results of the meeting. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I was disappointed that a breach of security, what I felt was security, had taken place with regard to the findings of the particular committee on which I sit. I read about it in one of the national newspapers.
If the privilege of the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) has been breached, it would be because the announcement was made in the fashion that it was, either by some Member or by somebody in that committee leaking it. If we meet in a steering committee or in camera, we meet for the
purpose of meeting privately. If there is no privacy, it is a redundant act to meet in camera. If the privilege of the Hon. Member for Peterborough has been breached, it is because the information was made public beforehand.
As to the content of the motion, I do not think that is a matter for discussion here. I think it comes down to a question. There is a process in place. There is a draw. Twenty names are drawn. For those whose names are not drawn, has their privilege been breached because their Bills have not come from the draw? That is the question, Mr. Speaker. If the regulations stipulate that six Bills have to be chosen, what happens to the 14 Bills remaining? Those Members affected could say that their privileges have been breached because their Bills were not chosen. If there has been a breach of privilege brought upon the Hon. Member for Peterborough, it would be that an announcement was made or a leak occurred prior to the findings of the standing committee being reported to this House. That took place, and it is something that I abhor. We meet in camera and in steering committees. Obviously members of this House, deliberately in certain cases, have gone to the press and made these things public. If there is anything we should deal with, that is what we should be dealing with.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief comment. There has been quite a bit of comment this afternoon on why we meet in camera. I might clarify that. The very first meeting we had of this committee was held downstairs in Room 112-North. Two members of the Official Opposition appeared with a number of cameramen and reporters and stated that their purpose was to filibuster the possibility of the selection of a Bill on capital punishment put forth by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm). That was their purpose. I refused as chairman to recognize the Members, and they left. We all agreed that if we had not done that, we would have gone nowhere with the selection of any Bill, let alone the Bill of the Hon. Member for Peterborough. That is why we met in camera. It was to discuss the various items before us and to come up with the proper selection.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to a couple of points made. The first one that I wish to make, and I wish to make it emphatically, is that I did not rise in my place today on a question of privilege because my Bill was not chosen. I rose on a question of privilege because of the process being used in selection. I am prepared to take part in the draw. We have to remember though that now there are different classes of Private Members' Bills. You could be a Member of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, like I have been for six or seven years and you might never have an opportunity to debate or discuss a piece of your own private Members' legislation. The process in place makes it necessary that 20 Bills be drawn. Your Bill could be among the other 140 Bills and that is where it could stay for your total life in Parliament. It is not a case of whether my Bill is chosen or not chosen; it is a case of what process is used to choose it as a votable item. I maintain that when a process is put in place that exceeds the
November 19, 1986

mandate given to the committee to make that selection, there is a question of privilege.
I am not arguing about the rights of the committee to select and bring to a votable item four Bills, six Bills or whatever it chooses. This time five Bills were chosen, although six could have been chosen. I am arguing that the committee has to be clear in its mandate. I suggest, with all due respect, that the mandate given to the committee under the Standing Order about which 1 rose on a question of privilege is not clear. Let me tell you why the Standing Order is not clear, Mr. Speaker.
This whole debate started out, as pointed out by the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper), with two main points and about five ripple points. All are very valid points, but they are not my question of privilege. When we refer to a motion empowering a standing committee to study and report, we do not refute the fact that Parliament has always been able to do that. Everybody in this House knows that Parliament has been able to do that. Nor am I refuting the fact made by the Chairman of the standing committee that this power to refer, discuss and report is in effect now under the reform brought about by the McGrath Committee. The McGrath Committee made it possible for standing committees to initiate their own studies. I do not find any fault with that at all. That gives more power to the standing committees.
I am arguing that in the process of disallowing my motion the committee has removed that right from Parliament. It argues and states in the decision that my motion simply empowered the Justice Committee to do what it already has the power to do, namely, the authority given to it under the McGrath Committee. By giving that authority from the McGrath Report to the committee, a report endorsed by all three political Parties, I did not think, and I am sure no one in this House believed, that we were removing that right from Parliament.
All my Bills and my motions, speaking only about my own particular case, went through your office, Mr. Speaker, for acceptance as to their condition and form. I had several sent back before they went into the draw. They met the conditions. That motion asked only for the right to refer it to by Parliament's direction and be put to a vote in the House. I did not ask the standing committee to refer it to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. I asked for permission to have the motion voted on in the House so that Parliament, not the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business, would direct that other standing committee to study and report. I was not under the impression, and I am still not under the impression, that Parliament has lost that right as the supreme body. This committee is only a finger wave of the main body, that is, of Parliament.
I hope that in this debate we are not all sitting here prepared to compromise Parliament's position in the issue. Parliament is supreme. Parliament can send anything it wants to any standing committee, notwithstanding the McGrath Committee which has given that authority to the standing committees.
Privilege-Mr. Domm
I hope we can get this matter before the standing committee. Just to show you that I am sincere, Mr. Speaker, I have requested of the standing committee the right to appear before it. I have sent a letter to every member of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business in order that I might appear before it to argue this point. I have not been given that opportunity. I have also sent a letter to every member of the Justice and Solicitor General's Committee asking to appear before it because it does have-and I agree with the standing committee-the authority to initiate a study. I am asking for more than the authority given to the standing committee. I am asking for the authority of Parliament to refer the matter and require a report. Other NDP, Liberal and Conservative back-benchers have put the same motion many times over as allowed under the present Standing Orders. They might just as well be prepared to withdraw them all because the committee unilaterally, without the authority of Parliament, removed that right through its rejection of my motion, giving that as the "reason" for the rejection of my motion.
As my privileges have definitely been violated, I therefore urge you, Mr. Speaker, to refer this matter to the appropriate committee in order that public hearings be held so we can document our case, hear the responses, and come to a resolution of the problem which does not dilute the power of Parliament in dealing with matters of urgent and pressing national concern.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have just two points to make. I would agree with the Hon. Member if in any way the committee had said that under no circumstances, as a matter of principle, would any Private Members' Motion to empower a committee to study something be accepted. However, the committee did not say that. If it had, the Hon. Member would be making a very serious point. I myself would not want to eliminate the ability of a private Member to bring a motion to have the House refer something to a committee for study. However, that is not what the committee did. The committee did not make its argument "in principle", and did not say "under all circumstances".
The reason given is not new. We used it in the last round. I recall the motion of the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) who wanted the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs to study the matter of credit card interest rates. We argued that the committee had the power to study that matter if it wanted to, and that, all other things being equal, there were other things that could not come before the House except in the form of a Private Members' Motion. Therefore, we suggested to the Hon. Member that he should try to get the committee to do that. That is all we have done in this case. That is not new. We did not invent it. It was employed once before by the committee. Therefore, I do not think the Hon. Member is being fair to suggest we pulled it out of a hat.

November 19, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Gagliano


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members have helped the Chair a great deal in their interventions. The matter is of grave concern to Members and the Chair is going to consider all of the representations very carefully and report to the House as expeditiously as possible.
The Chair is also aware that feelings in this matter are and have been tense. I want to thank Hon. Members for accepting my suggestion that we make a little extra effort this afternoon to be sure that however severely we may feel about any of the issues raised in this particular matter, we recognize the civilities of this place. That has been done and the Chair wants to express its appreciation for that conduct.
The Chair is also aware that the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) is placed in a difficult and uncomfortable position. I want to thank Hon. Members for hearing him out as courteously as he was heard.
There is another matter of privilege and I recognize the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano).


ALLEGED ASPERSION CAST ON CREDIBILITY OF MEMBER
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon in Question Period the Hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay), in answering a question from his own back-benchers, tried to discredit my credibility in this House.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House I said, and I quote from Hansard at page 1275:
At my request this morning a woman-
-I repeat, a womantelephoned the Revenue Canada office in Montreal. She gave my name, my social insurance number, my address, my date of birth. She was able to have access to my 1985 income tax return.
The important thing here is that a woman-and I don't think 1 could be mistaken for a woman-was able to have access to my income tax return.
So as far as I know, it seems that when someone calls and gives a social insurance number, they get out the first page of the income tax return containing the following information: address, date of birth, social insurance number, married or unmarried, single, divorced, and sex: male or female. It was obvious that here was a woman calling about an income tax return that belonged to a man, and the person at the other end of the line should have wondered about this.
Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong with the whole procedure, and it is dangerous, since traditionally, information on income tax returns is confidential.
Another thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the Minister is questioning my credibility, because it seems there were other versions. Of course he has every right to think so and say so, without challenging the credibility of other Members of this House. Besides, my version is also different from his.
Mr. Speaker, the matter of principle I wanted to stress in my question yesterday, and that is in fact why I am raising a question of privilege today, is that my credibility is being challenged. Instead of trying to challenge my credibility, the Minister ought to make sure that after this microfiche theft, Canadians need not fear that anyone could have access to their income tax returns, because, Mr. Speaker, income tax returns are sacred, they are personal.
Mr. Speaker, I would therefore ask, through you, that the Minister apologize in the House for having challenged the credibility of a Member and give Canadians the assurance that accidents like the one that happened yesterday will not happen again.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am very much indebted to my colleague for giving me a further opportunity to set the record straight. First, if he examines my remarks, I suggested that he did not tell the whole story. That is why I am glad to be able to take this opportunity very briefly to say to him, a Member for whom I have the greatest respect, that in a matter as serious as this-and I and the Government have made no attempt to minimize its seriousness-no additional speculations, extrapolations or half data should be put before the public to make them needlessly afraid of what might or might not occur.
What my colleague said, in so far as he said it, was correct, but he did not leave the impression that I think Canadians were entitled to receive under the circumstances. He says he has a different version, and perhaps he does, but it raises a lot of questions when he puts the question to me as he did yesterday about employees' integrity and violation of the system which he implied may have occurred because of the data he supplied.
With the leave of the House I will be very brief and put down, without violating his confidentiality, what actually did occur on the basis of what I was given by my Deputy Minister. I think it is of interest to all Canadians.
At 10.43 yesterday a call relating to my colleague opposite was received by an inquiries officer at the Montreal district office. The caller, an English-speaking female, after giving the SIN number and date of birth of the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano), asked about a particular item in his return. Through our computer system the employee satisfied herself that such an item was in fact in the return. No confidential information was given since, when our employee asked the caller for further detail about the deduction, the caller hung up. I think that is relevant and gives some assurance to Canadians.
At 10.59 a French-speaking female person called the Montreal district office. The call was received by another inquiries officer. The caller gave my colleague's name, SIN number and date of birth and again asked about an item. I will
November 19, 1986

not, of course, say what that item was. The employee asked for further detailed information. The caller provided the information. At 11.01 the employee accessed the computer and confirmed that the information provided by the caller was correct.
The employee then asked the caller to provide even further information about my colleague's return. Again the caller responded with the precise correct information. At that time the employee provided public information to the caller based on questions about the return. The caller terminated the conversation by informing our employee, without her having asked for it, of further tax information pertaining to my colleague.
In the two calls three pieces of information, either volunteered or otherwise, were requested and confirmed by the callers. Let me point out for the benefit of the House that, it is clear that no one in the Department can access confidential information without leaving a record for audit purposes. I think this information ought to be very reassuring to Canadians.
I have always had the greatest respect for my colleague. He is a good accountant. He knows that these safeguards are in place. As grievous and unfortunate as it is that this information may be on the record, it is clear that there are safeguards built into the system. Canadians need not have the impression that simply by calling the income tax office and providing a SIN number access to and information about that return can easily be obtained. That is my point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will, of course, reserve on this matter and make a ruling at a later date.


CHILD CARE
Mrs. Shirley Martin (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee on Child Care in both official languages. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence on this report later this day.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 106. I have a petition which has been certified to be correct as to form by the Clerk of Petitions and signed on October 16, 1986. This
Petitions
petition calls on the federal Government to change its mind with regard to the Patent Act. It points out that the proposed measures will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health requires the purchase of prescription drugs on a continuing basis. It is from residents of the riding of Thunder Bay- Atikokan and the neighbouring riding of Thunder Bay- Nipigon.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition signed by a number of residents of Canada. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 106, this petition has been found to be in order by the Clerk of Petitions. It was signed accordingly on November 7. The gist of the petition is that the signatories believe that the Government's proposed legislation to change the Patent Act will have the effect of increasing drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of the average Canadian to buy the necessary drugs. Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject those proposals to raise the drug prices and to reject the law which would have that effect.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in compliance with Section 106 this petition was certified to be correct as to form on November 7 of this year. It is from residents of the Lestock and Leross areas of my riding. They point out that the proposed changes to the Patent Act would increase drug prices and unfairly hurt Canadians whose health requires the purchase of prescription drugs. They indicate that the proposal would result in higher costs to provincial Government drug plans and is another example of Canadian Government concessions to the United States in the free trade negtiations at the expense of average Canadians. They therefore call upon this House to reject these proposals which will increase drug prices for Canadians.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of persons from Thompson, Manitoba. They state that the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act in relation to prescription drugs will increase drug prices. In view of the refusal of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) to table crucial Government cost studies in this House with respect to these concerns, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis):
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair finds the motion to be in order. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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

November 19, 1986
Motions


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.	[DOT] <l740)


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Young) which was
negatived on the following division:		
Althouse	(Division No. 22)
 YEAS Members Guilbault	McDonald
Angus	(Saint-Jacques)	(Broadview-Baker	Heap	Greenwood)Benjamin	Henderson	MitchellBoudria	Hopkins	NunziataBroadbent	Jewett	OrlikowCaccia	Kaplan	ParryDingwall	Keeper	PennerFinestone	Killens	PepinFoster	Langdon	Prud'hommeFulton	MacLellan	RiisGagliano	Manly	RobichaudGauthier	Marchi	RodriguezGray	Young -38(Windsor West) Andre	NAYS Members Gass	MazankowskiBertrand	Gerin	McCainBisson nette	Gervais	McKenzieBlais	Girard	MitgesBourgault	Gormley	NowlanBradley	Gottselig	OostromBrightwell	Graham	PennockBrowes	Guilbault	PetersonCadieux	(Drummond)	PlamondonCaldwell	Gurbin	RedwayCardiff	Halliday	ReimerChampagne	Hamilton	Ricard(Champlain)	Hawkes	St. GermainClark	Holtmann	Scott(Brandon-Souris)	Howie	(Victoria-Haliburton)Clifford	James	ScottComeau	Johnson	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Cook	(Bonavista-T rinity-	ScowenCooper	Conception)	ShieldsCorbett	Joncas	SparrowCrosbie	Jourdenais	Stewart(St. John's West)	Kempling	SulukCrosby	Kilgour	Taylor(Halifax West)	Kindy	TowersDarling	Landry	TremblayDaubney	La Salle	(Lotbiniere)Della Noce	Leblanc	TupperDesrosiers	Lesick	Van De WalleDuplessis	Lewis	VankoughnetEllis	MacDonald	WeinerFennell	(Kingston and	Witer-90Ferland	the Islands)	Fontaine	MacDougall	Forrestall	(Timiskaming)	Fraleigh	Malone	Gagnon	Marin



PARLIAMENTARY LOBBYISTS


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous agreement for the following motion. 1 move:
That the document entitled "Lobbying and the Registration of Paid Lobbyists, a Discussion Paper", tabled in the House on Thursday, December 19, 1985 (Sessional Paper No. 331-4/14), be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure;
That the Committee consider and report upon the issues discussed in the above-mentioned document;
That the evidence adduced by the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure in the First Session of the present Parliament be deemed to have been referred to the Committee; and
That the Committee report its findings and recommendations no later than Friday, February 20, 1987.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mazankowski) have unanimous consent of the House to move his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin) presented under committee reports the first report of the Special Committee on Child Care and indicated that under motions she would be asking for unanimous consent of the House to move concurrence in the report.
I ask whether there would be unanimous consent for myself, on behalf of the Hon. Member for Lincoln, to move concurrence in the first report of the Special Committee on Child Care.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House and the Hon. Member that we are not willing to
November 19, 1986

give concurrence to the proposal that he move the motion on behalf of the Hon. Member. In fact, to save time, I want to tell him that we are not ready to agree to the Hon. Member moving the motion.
I would be happy to discuss the matter further at an early meeting of House Leaders.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to indicate that we are also unprepared at this time to give the necessary unanimous consent. Perhaps we ought to have further discussions and consider it later.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Question answered orally is indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 14.


Mr. Nunziata: 1.	How many officers in the RCMP represent (a) native Indian or Inuit (b) black African (c) Indian/Pakistani (d) Oriental (p) Arab (/) Jewish ethnic or racial groups?
2.	Are steps being taken to encourage the recruitment of officers who represent visible minorities and, if so, what are they?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: 1. The
RCMP is unable to provide the data requested, as the RCMP application and personnel forms do not contain any questions which could identify an applicant or serving member by race, national origin, color or religion.
The RCMP employs, through a special program, 189 Native Special Constables in regular policing duties associated with Canada's native people, at several locations. For the reasons stated above, however, no further information exists on the numbers of native people, or those from any specific ethnic/racial background who are serving in the RCMP.
2. Yes. RCMP recruiting affords enhanced employment opportunity to four applicant categories, one of which is indigenous persons (Indians, Metis, Inuit).
The RCMP attempts to encourage Canadians of other ethnic backgrounds to consider a career in the Force by advertising for recruits in publications produced by visible minority groups. In addition, the RCMP has participated actively through the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police in co-operation with the Minister responsible for Multicultur-alism to improve the delivery of police services to Canada's ethnic communities into the policing profession.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.
Senate and House of Commons Act


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.