1987-02-12

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty pursuant to Section 9 of the Representation Act, 1985, Chapter 8, Statutes of Canada, 1986, to lay upon the table a certified copy of the 1987 report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Saskatchewan.
Pursuant to the Act, this report is deemed to have been referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to business of the House and, specifically, statements by Ministers. We were under the impression last week that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would be making a statement as a result of his trip to Africa. Almost a week has passed. Could the Parliamentary Secretary give us some idea of when we might expect to have that statement by the Prime Minister?


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will make inquiries. I will endeavour to communicate with my colleague with regard to exactly when the statement on South Africa can be made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) if, in fact, there is going to be one made.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker,
I have been tabling a series of petitions in the House as fast as people can sign them. This petition is from people of my riding, of the National Capital Region, and also from several tourists who have come to Ottawa. They say that whereas a decision to close Rideau Hall grounds was made by the National Capital Commission, the Department of Public Works, the RCMP and the office of the Governor General without prior notice; and whereas the closure of this attractive and tranquil park affects thousands of visitors to the capital from across the country who held Canada's uniquely accessible Rideau Hall as a symbol of the trust, openness and democracy of which Canadians are so justly proud; and whereas area residents from the entire national capital region who have used and enjoyed the grounds of Rideau Hall, recognizing the security concerns that prompted the closure decision, cannot accept a blanket closure of the 120-acre park to public access; the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to open the decision for consultation with citizens' representatives of the large and growing opposition in order that a modus vivendi be created that would satisfy both the Government's security concerns and the public right to access.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have ten petitions from my constituents and Canadians from across Ontario and several other provinces. These people wish to lay a grievance before the Government and the Parliament of Canada. They state that whereas the Government of Canada has imposed a retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language which has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information; and whereas the tariff has little negative effect on the publishing industry in the United States yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers and distributors in Canada's culture; and whereas rising book prices have placed a strain on book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries; the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect of free trade negotiations.

February 12, 1987
Motions


Mr. Speaker:: Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), perhaps I should comment that today he has reached that significant honour and stage in his life in which he joins some others of us, having passed his fiftieth year. Perhaps we could take judicial notice of the fact that he is no longer "l'enfant terrible" but now a mature and seasoned veteran of this place to whom we look for great guidance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It just goes to show that there is still hope for most of us in this place.
I have the honour and privilege to present a petition that is signed by some 1,500 residents of my home town of Capreol which has a population of 4,000. Therefore, we can see that
1,500	is a significant number of petitioners.
The petitioners in Capreol state that CNR has embarked upon a policy of centralizing railway operations out of smaller railway towns to the major regional headquarters, which is Toronto in our case. The petitioners have also pointed out that the company has refused to provide the public access to any of the conclusions reached through its job rationalization studies.
The citizens also point out that CN has consistently refused to provide any facts, figures, or financial statements to justify its claim for centralization. They point out that centralization is contradictory to present federal and provincial government policies of decentralizing services across the country.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to require CNR, a Crown corporation, to end its policy of centralization of railway services, and further call upon Parliament to order a full public inquiry into the company's operations.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 on behalf of a number of Canadians who have indicated their concern regarding changes to the Patent Act. They believe that these changes to the Patent Act related to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy these necessary prescription drugs. They suggest that these proposals by the federal Government will result in higher costs to provincial government drug plans as well.
Therefore, they are calling upon Parliament, especially upon the Government, to reject the continuation of these changes to the Patent Act in an effort to provide fair and accessible prescription drugs to all Canadians.


ELECTIONS, PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURE CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
John R. Rodriguez: That the first report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure presented to the House on Tuesday, January 27, 1987, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to reassure my colleagues in the House, particularly on the government side, that this concurrence motion in the lobbying report presented by the committee is not any part of a plan to derail the Government's business for this day or for the week. It is not part of any plot or strategy-


Mr. Gormley:: That is hard to believe.


John R. Rodriguez: The Hon. Member opposite says that it is hard to believe. It is not hard to believe because the motion is appropriate.
Let me quote some headlines from Quorum between February 7 and February 9. For instance, the headline in The Ottawa Citizen on February 7 is: "RCMP Probing Tory Influence Peddling". In The Globe and Mail on Feburary 7, the headline states: "Liberals say four of PM's aides may have had role in rental deal". In The Gazette from Montreal, on February 7, the headline is, "PM: We'll win back public's faith". The headline in The Ottawa Citizen on February 9 is: "Letter links ministers, PMO to contract: MP". Another headline in the same paper states: '"I'm telling the truth,' Mulroney's accuser says". Another headline from The Globe and Mail on February 9 states: "Swirl of scandal lends impetus to PM's reform plans". Another headline on February 9 states: "Quebec Tories propose 'Moral Code' for politics". On Monday, February 9, another headline states: "Ban corporate donations, say Quebec Tories". A headline in The Gazette on February 9 states: "Millionaire insists PM interfered in lawsuit".
I point these out because one can even read today's newspaper to see that these are the kinds of headlines being presented to the Canadian public. I believe they create a certain cynicism about Canadian politics in the minds of Canadians.
The reason that the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure studied this whole question of lobbying stems from the whole situation involving Mr. Frank Moores and his setting up of Government Consultants International. Indeed, it was the impetus for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to declare in August, 1985, following a cabinet meeting in Vancouver, that legislation would be introduced in Parliament. Frank Moores, a former Premier of Newfoundland, had set up this consulting firm. Its purpose was, as it turned out, to peddle influence. We are all aware of the fact that he had been appointed by the Prime Minister to the board of directors of Air Canada. Yet he was off lobbying for other airlines with respect to their dealings with the Government. There was the whole question of his obtaining a fishing licence for someone for a fee. The Prime Minister quite
February 12, 1987

correctly recognized that that kind of behaviour gave the wrong message to the Canadian public. He recognized that it not only was not right but it was not seen to be right, and he promised legislation following the cabinet meeting in Vancouver in late August 1985. He did not leave it at the response to a media question in Vancouver. He tabled a statement in this House on Monday, September 9, 1985, and I will read what he said about lobbying legislation.
The fifth component of this comprehensive approach to public sector ethics is the undertaking of this Government to introduce into the House of Commons, at an early date, legislation to monitor lobbying activity and to control the lobbying process by providing a reliable and accurate source of information on the activities of lobbyists. We will require, among other things, paid lobbyists to register and identify their clients. This will enable persons who are approached by lobbyists for Canadian corporations, associations and unions, and by agents on behalf of foreign governments and other foreign interests, to be clearly aware of who is behind the representation.
I have accordingly asked my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to prepare, on an urgent basis, legislation to govern lobbying activity.
That was on September 9, 1985. As it turned out, we did not get the promised legislation. However, what we got was a study by the Standing Committee on Elections, Priviliges and Procedure chaired by the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper), and I should add, admirably chaired. We carried out the study of lobbying and we very quickly recognized as we held hearings that there were considerable numbers of Canadian lobbyists. That was the first discovery.
We further discovered that very few of them wanted to have a registry set up. Indeed, Mr. Frank Moores, of Government Consultants International, appeared before the committee and said: "Oh, we do not have a problem with having a register of lobbyists, but we want to keep our clients secret". That was the line that most lobbyists used. They wanted a register of lobbyists but all it would have was the name of the lobbyist, which we would already know. They wanted no information with respect to their clients, the issue they were lobbying, and how much.
We also went to the United States and interviewed lobbyists. There is a system of registering lobbyists in the U.S. not only at the national level but at the state level. We very quickly discovered that while the need to register lobbyists was recognized, in fact there were so many loopholes in the system that an elephant could get through. For example, we discovered that in Washington, while there was a registry of lobbyists, it only covered Senators and Congressmen. The lobbyist registration did not cover lobbying being done with bureaucrats. It did not cover lobbying being done with the staff of Senators and Congressmen. It also excluded the White House.
We also discovered there was no provision for enforcement, there was no system for verification of the registry. Sure, they had to do it, but the clerk who had responsibility for the registry had no power to verify the information in the registry.
Motions
The clerk certainly had no power to follow up and enforce the registry. There were no sanctions.
We then went to California because we understood that was a state which had very tough lobby registration. We heard witnesses and found out California had gone to the other extreme. It had surrounded its lobbyists legislation with a lot of very finite details which became very cumbersome and indeed very bureaucratic. For example, lobbyists had to declare any expenditure of more than $10. If they took a state legislator out to lunch, they had to take out a little black book and put down the amount they spent for lunch and so on.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The result of the McDonald's lobby, probably.


John R. Rodriguez: Very probably so they could all go and eat at McDonald's, as the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) suggests. We found that was going too far and it could become very bureaucratic and cumbersome.
When we interviewed the lobbyists in California we were told that if we Candians were going to put a lobbyists' registration in place, they would advise us to make it tough and make sure that we get a registry which reflects every aspect of lobbying but without the ridiculous nature of picayune amounts to be registered, and so on. They pointed out the need to cover the sort of indirect lobbying which goes on through mass mailings. They thought we should pay some attention to that. They also pointed out we should ensure we outlawed contingency lobbying which is where a lobbyist will lobby for a contract and if it is successful receives 10 per cent of the value of the contract. They told us to stay away from that.
Of course, the question which came up constantly in our committee was, do we really need this legislation? Do we really need to register lobbyists? Is it that much of a problem? I pointed out the example of Frank Moores. However, there is also a very insidious kind of lobbying which goes on in Canada and touches on Hon. Members of the House. That has to be these friendship associations. There was an article by Linda Diebel which appeared in the The Gazette. It clearly outlines the power and influence that the South Koreans have in our Government. The article points out how powerful the South Korean lobby is. It points out that the South Korean Government has set up a Canada-South Korea friendship association and that a considerable number of MPs belong to it. As a matter of fact, more than one-quarter of Canada's MPs and Senators-a greater number than in any other country's friendship force on Parliament Hill-are members of the Canada-South Korea Parliamentary Association. The honorary president of the organization is the former Minister of National Defence. The Sergeant-at-Arms sits on the board of the association. The Hon. Member for Verdun-Saint-Paul (Mr. Chartrand) said: "They are very nice to you". Of course they are very nice. They are nice because they are trying to make a good impression. They are trying to become friends with Members of Parliament and trying to improve their image. That becomes extremely important when matters such

February 12, 1987
Motions
as duties and tariffs on South Korean goods come up for decision making.
[DOT] (U30)
A statement made by the South Koreans is important to consider. They said: "Success all comes down to an image, a very good image". Of course they want to push a good image. That is important in the lobbying business because when one impresses legislators with what a good person one is or what a good organization one belongs to then one is more likely to have the ear of MPs when it is needed.
Former Members of the House who were concerned about lobbying had introduced Private Members' Bills concerning lobbying, starting with Mr. Barry Mather of the NDP who introduced a Bill to register lobbyists. The late Walter Baker introduced a Private Members' Bill on the same subject. That cudgel was picked up by James McGrath, the former Member for St. John's East. He introduced a Private Members' Bill, as did I. I introduced Bill C-269 which dealt with the whole question of lobbying.
Having studied the matter very thoroughly and closely, our committee made recommendations. The recommendations of the committee were made public about three weeks ago when we tabled our report in the House. We recommended the adoption and implementation of a system of registration of paid lobbyists. I point out that this was a unanimous report. Members of the committee who represent all Parties in the House agreed that lobbyists have to be registered. We also suggested that the lobbyists organize themselves into an association of lobbyists. We recommended that in addition to the system of registration. They should establish some code of ethical behaviour and police themselves. They should be responsible for their own actions, apart from the registration process that we have recommended. We have recommended that the registration process come under the direction of the Assistant Deputy Registrar General of Canada. We recommended that there be no fee to register a lobbyist and that information about a lobbyist ought to be obtainable on request from the Assistant Deputy Registrar General and that there be a fee to cover the cost of printing information, et cetera.
We believe it is important to know who the lobbyist is and for whom he is lobbying. We want to know the client of the lobbyist and the issue. In other words, we want to know who is doing what to whom. I also wanted to know for how much. But in light of the fact that this was a unanimous report I dropped my demand and went along with the other members of the committee for the sake of unity. After a period of two years we are prepared to review the legislation and see how it is working. At that time we might make a recommendation with respect to how much a lobbyist is being paid.
It was also important to know that we could cover the legal profession when members of that profession are acting as lobbyists for their clients. We have made a distinction between that function and the function of lawyers who appear before
quasi-judicial bodies such as the CTC or the CRTC in respect of some type of application.
I recommend to all Members that they read the report of the committee very carefully. I call upon the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) and upon the Prime Minister to bring before the House the legislation which was promised in September, 1985. I think Parliament is ready for it. The country is certainly ready for it. Not to bring it forward would be a dereliction of duty.


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). I must say-and I am sure he will take this in the right light- that his comments today were more temperate than some I have heard before.
I wish to comment on something the Hon. Member said in his opening remarks. He suggested that Mr. Moores and GCI were peddling influence. Perhaps it was just the Hon. Member's use of words, but I hope he understands that influence peddling is a criminal offence. I hope it was an inadvertent accusation on the part of the Hon. Member rather than a deliberate attempt to use the immunities of the Chamber to make that type of statement. The Hon. Member may have his views about the propriety of certain activities. However, I hope he shares my view that we ought to be cautious in terms of the language we use so that we do not make charges that we do not intend to make.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said that I was more temperate. I would point out that that is because I am older today.
I did use the words "influence peddling". I can put it in the vernacular used by Mr. Moores' company when it appeared before our committee. The representative of the company who appeared before the committee said that the services of the company were "selective advocacy". I could substitute "influence peddling" for "selective advocacy", and I will put that phraseology in "selective advocacy".
-tO)
It is also interesting to note that when that company came before us it pointed out very clearly that it has also hired Liberals. It hired not only prominent Conservatives, but it also hired prominent Liberals. One of the dangerous things about this is how it would appear to the public. One fellow who was there representing the company wore his MP's pin. It is obvious that that would give him access to this building, to Members in the House, and possibly to the bureaucracy. So it is impressions that we are dealing with. In fact, the Moores company was formed after the election of the Conservative Government. We also know that Mr. Frank Moores was a big backer of the Prime Minister in his leadership bid. We know that he received the appointment to the board of directors of Air Canada. We also discovered that he was acting as a lobbyist for other airline companies in their dealings with government agencies and quasi-judicial bodies.
February 12, 1987

I want to point out that the impression is the Hon. Minister's problem and his Government's problem. I am here trying to help them clean up their act so the Government can start rising in the polls. I must be getting old when I reach out to my downtrodden Tory friends and give them a hand up. I moved this concurrence motion to give them a chance to clean up the mess, and here is the Minister accusing me of casting aspersions on Mr. Frank Moores. I would think that he would want to cut him loose. The Minister has a responsibility to tell us when there will be lobbyist registration. The Minister should tell us that, and not quibble over whether it is selective advocacy, or influence peddling. The impression of Canadians is that if you have powerful friends at court, you can get things. That is what the people out there recognize. That is what the Government has to deal with. After all, it is in third place and sinking like a stone.


Harvie Andre: I wish to withdraw my earlier comment about accusing the Member of being temperate. I lost my head there for a moment and thought that the Hon. Member had matured and grown reasonable. I was trying to make the point that one ought not to use, even inadvertently, language that accuses someone of criminal activity, unless the Hon. Member is prepared to back it up. I do not think that making that point as temperately as I attempted to do warranted the outburst of partisanship from the Hon. Member, given that his original remarks were more temperate, albeit from a perspective that I did not agree with every step of the way.
Let us be cautious about our language, and let us not accuse people of criminal activity unless we are prepared to back it up. That simple point should not have brought forward that tirade from the Hon. Member. It is regrettable that he responded in that manner, and then at the end of it all said that it is terrible what the public now thinks of the Government and our institutions, and we have to clean up our act. It goes both ways. You cannot pick up gobs of mud and throw them and then say, "Look at all the mud around". Some of the responsibility has to be borne in that regard. That was my only caution. Let us not accuse people of criminal acts unless we are prepared to back them up with facts.


John R. Rodriguez: I did not say anything in the House that I did not say in the committee when these witnesses came before it. When I asked the representatives of Frank Moores' firm specific questions about ownership of the company, clients, costs, and the connection that they had with the Conservative Party, they all refused to answer those questions other than to point out that they have also hired Liberals. I said to them at that point, and I said it in the House, that that leads Canadians to come to one conclusion. If it cannot be dealt with out in the open, out in the sunlight, or if it has to be dealt with in the shadows, as the Prime Minister refers to it when he says that it should not be shrouded in mystery, it leads Canadians to come to no other conclusion but that this whole operation is influence peddling. When Canadians see how closely connected the lobbyists are with the Government, that is the only conclusion that they can come to. It is obvious that this is the conclusion
Motions
they have come to, and the judgment that they have made about the Government.
Instead of quibbling, the Minister should be standing up and telling us when he will bring down the legislation to register lobbyists, and to create transparency in the operation of Government. Some degree of transparency is required. That is one of the advantages of lobbying registration. It does provide a degree of transparency to the Canadian people. The Canadian people have a right to know who is doing what to whom, and I would add for how much. Instead of making fractious comments about my temperance, as the Minister responsible for this legislation he ought to be telling us when he intends to bring forward a Bill.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to take part in this debate, and particularly to follow my good friend from Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). I have had the pleasure of working with him for some time on this particular subject. Through that process I have discovered that he is twice as bright as I am, twice as kind as I am, and he works twice as hard as I do. To top it all off, today I found out that he is twice as old.
One of the things that I find very intriguing about this process that we have just gone through is that we as a committee came up with a unanimous report. As the Speaker and Members of this House well know, that is an unusual circumstance in Parliament, particularly on an issue of such controversy. I went through the whole process and tried to figure out why this group of people would come together with a unanimous report. The First and obvious reason would be that they are all from the same Party, and everyone knows that this is not the case. The second reason would be that the members of the committee are a bunch of docile people. Anyone who knows the membership of this particular committee would know that the Hon. Members for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), Okanagan- Similkameen (Mr. King), Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish), and myself do not fit into the docile category. I finally figured out what allowed this group of men to come together with a unanimous report. We all have one thing in common, and that is the fact that virtually every one of us can walk under any table standing up, there is no bending down required. It is the only common bond that I can Find through the whole process.
It was a unanimous report. The process took us pretty close to a year, because we discovered as we got into the issue that it was a difficult issue, and one of tremendous complexity. Wheels within wheels are turning in this issue. Another point that came out was that in reality we are dealing with a changing world.
I wish to quote from the report which talks about that changing world that we face. On page 5 of the report, when speaking about the influence of lobbying, it states:
This influence in Canada has been primarily focussed on the bureaucracy and the executive. However, with the introduction of recent reforms to the committee

February 12, 1987
Motions
system and private members' business in the House of Commons it is anticipated that the private Member will increasingly become the target of lobbying efforts.
Under the provisional Standing Orders of the House, standing committees now have unlimited mandates to study matters within their jurisdiction as well as the power and budget to engage the services of professional staff. It is our belief that in addition to all the usual contact points, these Standing Committees may provide a new focus for lobbying activities.
The bottom line is that we found the world of lobbying to be a changing world. It has all sorts of complexities that we want to address. One concern of committee members was that we establish a level playing field. We wanted to make sure that all those involved were playing under the same rules, restrictions and guidelines. That is why we recommended that members of the Canadian Bar and other professionals such as accountants be included in the registration. If memory serves me correctly, when members of the Canadian Bar appeared before the committee, they recommended that if we proceeded with the process of registration they should be included. We of course did that in our report.
My friend from Nickel Belt spoke about our experience in Washington and Sacramento. There is no doubt that those trips had a significant impact on the committee. We got some firsthand experience in that we were able to talk to people responsible for registration as well as those being registered. In addition, and this is something often overlooked when committees travel, members of the committee had the chance to get to know, appreciate and respect each other. The result was the unanimous report which we produced.
One significant thing to come out of the trip to Washington was that we learned there were so many loopholes in the registration process there that you could drive three or four semi-trucks through them side by side without danger of hitting anything or anyone. For example, lobbyists only have to register if they deal with elected representatives such as Senators or Congressmen. Our experience in Canada is that a very significant portion of lobbying in Canada is not done with elected representatives at all but with the bureaucracy, its various officials and staff. That was a very important thing to take note of and address in our report.
In Sacramento we discovered that a great amount of detailed information was required. Strangely enough, the effect of that was that you had such a great amount of information it became virtually useless and almost made a mockery of the process. We wanted to address that as well because we wanted a system which was simple, clean and effective. Yet we learned that even with all that detail there was very little need for a large staff. In other words, all of the necessary machinery for the registration process could be handled by a small group of people. Again if memory serves me correctly, California has a population roughly equivalent to that of Canada.


Mr. Kilgour:: It is bigger, 26 million.


Albert Glen Cooper: So a little bigger than Canada. A very complex registration process requiring a great deal of information, yet a very small staff to handle it. I think that is important because one of the concerns I heard expressed since the report came down is that we have to be careful because this will require a tremendous bureaucracy and all sorts of funding. The reality, given our experience in both Washington and Sacramento, is that this is not the case at all.
Another point that has to be made is that for some reason there is a feeling that lobbying is a dirty word. We in the committee felt nothing could be further from the truth. I would like to refer to the committee report and read one paragraph which I think speaks to this particular issue. Let me quote the following, again from the same page:
Your Committee is impressed with the role that special interest groups or lobbyists play in the dissemination of information on matters of public policy. The lines of communication which are developed by these groups are important in the resolution of government policy.
A critical part of policy development in any government is to accept and even seek out information and views from those affected and the public at large. Lobbyists often present competing views, supply what might be otherwise unavailable information, and propose solutions so government can better assess the implications of proposed policies.
It was very important that we recognized in our report the role and responsibility of lobbyists. The report was not in any way designed to suppress them but, rather, to encourage them and get everyone on a level playing field with a certain amount of openness. That I think does not so much convict the guilty as protect the innocent. That was certainly one of the fundamental principles in the preparation of this report.
Another point which I think is important is that in several interviews after the report was issued the press wanted to know what kind of incidents of wrongdoing we had come up with. What had we seen that was unethical. The reality is that we did not come across that sort of evidence. I think that if all Members were honest, we could say that the issues which have gained some sort of profile in the last little while could probably be counted on the fingers of both hands, if not one hand. My point is this. There have been incidents which have caused the Canadian public concern, incidents involving lobbyists, incidents involving Members of Parliament. However, the reality is that it is a very small number of cases. The vast majority of Members of Parliament are very honest, sincere and hard-working people. That fact crosses Party lines. The same applies to the lobbying industry. By far and away the vast majority of those people are sincere, honest people who do everything in an ethical, honest and sincere way. The point of the registration is to deal with the exceptions and get everyone on a level playing field where they are treated equally, fairly, and where the public can be assured that what is going on is in the public eye, and help eliminate this feeling of things being done behind closed doors or under the table.
I want to look briefly at the recommendations made by the committee. As is apparent to everyone, we recommended the adoption and implementation of a system of registration for paid lobbyists. We also recommended that the Government
February 12, 1987

consult with members of the lobbying industry to discuss the formation of an association of lobbyists in addition to a system of registration. As we said in our report, that would put responsibility for the day to day conduct of the lobbying industry squarely where it belongs, on the industry itself.
Earlier in my comments I referred to the fact that the vast majority of people are clear-thinking, honest and sincere. We want to encourage them.
I see you are giving me a signal that my time is fast running out, Mr. Speaker. I thought I had until about 12.07. Do I have a few more minutes? Then I can make a few more comments. I know the speech is fascinating the whole House.


An Hon. Member:: Especially the galleries.


Albert Glen Cooper: The galleries are really enjoying it. I know the press is watching it with great interest, so I am glad I have a few more minutes.
One of the most important and also most difficult things we had to do in the committee was to come up with a definition of a lobbyist. That is probably at the root of all the work we did. If we had made a mistake in that area, it would have tainted or soured the entire report. What we recommended essentially is that lobbying be defined as attempting to influence either directly or indirectly any Government decision. Let me deal with direct and indirect influence. Direct influence is in the one on one context. Another area becoming quite significant is the indirect category, which is developing in the United States and it seems to be a trend starting here in Canada. I speak of political action committees. They are very sophisticated, highly Financed and highly organized lobbying groups that are having a tremendous impact on public policy and decisions. They have traditionally fallen out of the net that would normally be included in a registration of lobbyists, hence our reason for adding the word "indirectly". That point I feel is very important for the Department to pick out from the report.
Included in government decisions are category regulations, laws, policies and contracts. All of those are significant public activity having a direct impact on the Canadian taxpayer and we believe that they should be included in any definition. We recommended that, for the purpose of registration, a lobbyist be defined generally to include anyone who, for compensation-that would either include a person on salary or having a contract-engages in lobbying activities as we have defined them, directed at the executive-and this is very important flowing out of the American experience-the bureaucracy or Members of the House of Commons or Senate or their staff. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we have tried to make sure that we dealt with the Canadian reality and did not mimic the American experience, which we felt had really created a number of holes and opportunities to evade the system of registration.
Motions
The information we required was really very simple. My friend, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, as always with his wonderful way with words, described it very well. We want to know who is doing what, to whom and on what issue, and, as he said, to add for how much. But that is basically it. We wanted to know who the lobbyists are lobbying for or who they are representing and we wanted to know what issue the lobbyists were dealing with. We felt that if those three basic principles were made public in reality, you would have the nuts and bolts of the information that Canadians need to see what kinds of activities are going on and thus get that sense of openness and freedom that is important.
I touched earlier on the administration of the system and how important it was that it not be viewed as a large bureaucracy. We recommended that the Assistant Deputy Registrar General be charged with the responsibility of administering the registry. I want to emphasize again that we should not have a large bureaucracy or one that would require a great deal of expense or one that is complex.
I want to deal with what is happening from here on. The committee worked on the issue for a year. We struggled through it, we found it complex, difficult and we heard a lot of witnesses. We did a little travelling, and we have come up with a report that I think has been well received. It is a balanced report. Over the last couple of weeks I have received mail from a wide variety of people, the Canadian public, lobbyists, lawyers and so on who have indicated to me how pleased they are with the report. They see it as a step in the right direction. Well, what happens from here?
The Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) is with us in the House today. I am pleased to see him here because it demonstrates his interest in the subject. He is the one responsible for what will happen from now on. We as a committee asked the Minister's Department to draft some legislation flowing out of our report and then to refer it back to our committee. The reason for that is very simple. We want to see that the legislation flowing out of our report is consistent with it. No one is looking for a mirror image, but we are looking for the basic principles that we feel are important. After that, we would ask that the legislation come back to the House and be passed quickly.
A very important part of the report is that the whole issue be checked again in 2 years' time. The issue is complex and we are charting new territory. It is important to review the results, problems and pitfalls that may develop over the next couple of years. This will give us a chance to clean up whatever discrepancies or problems may have been created by the process.
After having talked to the Minister on a couple of occasions and in talking to as many people as I can, my sense is that the Department is giving this report a high priority and that it will be working very quickly to get the matter into a Bill. Further, my indications are that we will be dealing with it again in this House not too far into the future.

February 12, 1987
Motions
I have appreciated the opportunity to speak on this issue, to be part of the debate and to concur in a report of which I am particularly proud, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank each and every Member of the committee who was with me through that process because it has been a very good one, one that has been educational as well as profitable.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I think the Chairman of our committee, the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) did an excellent job in outlining some of the difficulties that we had concerning registration of lobbyists. One of our recommendations concerned those who initiate and are paid to organize mass mailings, advertising campaigns to disseminate material designed to influence Government through public opinion. Would the Member comment on that as well as on the requirement to register non-profit organizations, volunteer groups and single industry groups, the conditions under which we want them to register their lobbyists?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the non-profit groups, this area caused a great deal of difficulty for the committee because we did not want in any way to appear to be restricting access of the general Canadian public to either their own Members of Parliament or to the Government at large. In this particular circumstance we have asked that groups which are strictly made up of volunteers having no salaries or contracts not be included in the registration. However, if you have a group that is a volunteer organization-let me pick one out of the air, let us say the Red Cross of Canada-which has an official who is paid a salary or has a contract to engage in lobbying-if that person is in part a professional lobbyist and it is part of his job description-we ask that such people be included in the registration. We are trying to get at the "professionals". We are not trying in any way to restrict access, but we are trying to register those who do lobby in a professional capacity.
Regarding what I call the political action committees in the United States and mass mailings, it is difficult to tell where that will go in Canada. We do have a sense that that area will expand. Because that is a professional form of lobbying and activity that, as I mentioned earlier, is highly financed and well organized, we felt that it should be included in the registration. We feel that this may well be something that will happen in the near future. That is why we used the word "indirect" in the report.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Chairman of the committee just say that groups like, for example, the Red Cross would be asked to register as a volunteer organization. That response confuses me a bit because on page 4 of the report, the committee says that it has determined that for the present, volunteer associations, single-interest groups and nonprofit associations would not generally be required to register.
I wonder if the Hon. Member could clarify that for me.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, again, the distinction is the definition of a paid versus an unpaid lobbyist. There are volunteer organizations that have in their employ people who are paid to lobby. That changes the role of those individuals. They then become professional lobbyists.
Let me give two examples that I think will help clarify this situation. Group A is a volunteer organization. No one in that group is paid a salary to do any kind of lobbying. Group B is also a volunteer organization but it employs one individual who may be called a government relations officer or perhaps a chairman who is paid a salary or is on contract. Part of this person's responsibility is to lobby. That individual, because he is paid, would then be included in the registration requirements. The person from Group A, on the other hand, receives no salary or payment for lobbying. That is where we drew the line for those who ought not to be registered.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it a pleasure to participate in this debate and to add a few comments to the very worthwhile comments that have already been made by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper), the Chairman of this committee which did very excellent work. If you will permit me to make a comment as an aside, Mr. Speaker, I could not help but think, as both Hon. Members commented on the intent, purpose and motivation for this recommendation respecting lobbyists, that we want to see who is doing what to whom, where and when, that that might very well be an accurate description of what a peeping-Tom might say about his motivation.


Albert Glen Cooper: We will register them too.


Harvie Andre: However, there is not only unanimous agreement in the committee but in the House that registration of lobbyists is an important and timely issue.
The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has asked that the House move concurrence in the recent report of the committee. Certainly I as Minister responsible for this particular area have no difficulty in supporting that recommendation. As the Registrar General for Canada, I am likely to be responsible and have the responsibility now for creating and maintaining a registration system. The committee has made many valuable recommendations and I am presently working to produce a proposal which takes those recommendations into account wherever possible. I hope to bring that proposal before my cabinet colleagues within days as opposed to weeks or months. From that process, hopefully legislation will flow to be presented to the House in relatively short order.
The principles about which the committee talked and the principles dictating our work in the Department and before Cabinet are openness, clarity, public access and administrative simplicity. We want there to be openness because, while peeping-Toms or voyeurs are in certain circumstances engaging in activities which are improper, when it comes to government activities, a degree of voyeurism is necessary. We

February 12, 1987

want to strike a balance between satisfying the necessity of openness and not imposing on the system a degree of openness that makes it impossible for it to operate. Some activities must go on with the blinds pulled, not that they are scandalous, immoral or improper but just because they cannot be conducted in public. That is a simple reality. I think the committee came as close to striking that balance as it could in identifying the need to register paid lobbyists and not other lobbying activity.
We are all exposed to lobbying. Lobbying is what makes the system run. Without lobbying, we could not function because, brilliant as we all are, every single idea or suggestion we articulate does not spring into being in our own minds as a result of some genetic process. We learn from people who come to us with ideas, suggestions and recommendations. That is an important part of the democratic process. Indeed, lobbying is the essence of democracy. We want to ensure that that continues. On the other hand, it is important that the public believe that what is going on is not improper and that people are not improperly enriching themselves or improperly gaining access which others cannot gain.
Having said that, I would like to voice some caution. When we concentrate entirely on process, we tend to forget that ultimately, it is the results that count. It is possible to get a good idea from a very bad source who passed that idea on with very poor motives. However, it is possible to use that idea and come up with a final result that is proper. We must remember when it comes to things like government contracts, for example, that the test should be whether or not the contract is right, the taxpayers get full value for the contract, and in fact it was the best deal that could have been made in the circumstances. That is the real test and that is what we must remember.
We are here as trustees of the taxpayer. Our object is to ensure that the taxpayer gets full value. While process is important and while respect for the process is also important, we ought never, as sometimes we come close to doing, say that it does not matter that the decision was right and that the taxpayers got full value, the thing is bad and condemned because involved in the process were people who put forward suggestions or lobbied on the basis of how much was in it for them. That causes us to say that we cannot accept the results.
I do not want to digress too much into current situations and circumstances, but the 150 public servants involved have said that the decision which was made was the best possible decision. The military and public servants in DSS and other Departments involved have said that the Low Level Air Defence system bought from the Oerlikon team was the best system technically, was the cheapest, and had the best industrial benefits and highest Canadian content. It was the best decision according to all the people involved. I am talking about public servants rather than the political people involved. The losing bidders have said publicly that the system was fair.
Motions
They recognized that they were beaten in a competition by the Oerlikon group. The best decision for the taxpayers of Canada is now being cast in disrepute because some suggest that there was some lobbying in the process, some of which was illicit.
I raise this because I happened to be the Minister responsible for the Oerlikon contract at the time. I am aware of some of the lobbying which took place. The fact is that the process was impeccable. The decision taken was the right decision. Subsequent dealings by Oerlikon with others are now the subject of police investigations, as they ought to be. However, we ought not to get carried away in our analysis. In fairness, we should be able to separate these considerations and recognize that, in the final analysis, our responsibility is to ensure that our decisions are right. However, in order to maintain the support of our democratic system, the public must be aware and must understand that there is nothing happening which should cause them fear. That is why the registration of paid lobbyists is an important initiative which we are undertaking.
I am sure we will be able to produce legislation which will be satisfactory to all sides, but that is not without its problems. A company located in Ottawa which wants to do business with the Government does not need a paid lobbyist because its representatives can phone or drive over to meet with officials. Representatives of companies in Toronto or Montreal may have to take a plane ride, or they may send salesmen to make those trips. However, if you are in Calgary, Vancouver, or Halifax, and are of such a size that sending a salesman to Ottawa to do business is a significant expenditure, you may be tempted to hire an agent, as some companies do. According to this, that agent would have to be registered.
We then get into an equity situation. Does every salesman of every company have to register? I do not raise that as an insurmountable problem, but only to illustrate that we must draw a line. Every time a line is drawn there are people who fall just on one side of the line. They wonder why they are affected while the fellow right next door, who is not that dissimilar, is not affected. As I said, that is not an insurmountable obstacle, but I wanted to bring it to the attention of the House because the legislation which is brought forth will have to deal with such issues.
The committee recommended, quite properly, that there be significant penalties for violations. One would ask what a significant penalty is. Do we say that they cannot talk to anyone in Government for the rest of their life? Do we put them in jail? Do we impose a fine? That is another challenge which we will meet. I simply raise it as an issue which will have to be dealt with.
What about investigations? Do we want a system whereby people respond to complaints, or do we invest whoever is charged with the registration with investigatory powers? Do we want a system of licence numbers wherein every time a public servant makes contact with someone from the outside world they must ask whether they are getting paid and what their licence number is? I am told that in my Department that

February 12, 1987
Committee Reports
would represent 30 or 40 sheets of paper a day. If we multiply that by the size of the Government, I do not know what it would mean administratively. We must look into that in order to develop a system which is administratively simple. We are struggling with that issue. The House may be sure that we will come up with a recommendation.
I do not want to take too much more of the time of the House. The debate which has gone on for months, indeed years, is reaching its climax. The legislation will be brought forward in very short order. We hope that with the passage of that legislation we will all contribute toward elevating the reputation of the process and the system to a level above that to which it has fallen in recent times. It has fallen to such a degree that we are all tarnished, those who are the recipients of the targeted mud and those who are the throwers, because in the process we all end up muddy. The country is damaged as a result.
Again I would like to acknowledge publicly the excellent work done by the committee under the chairmanship of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Peace River. Unanimous reports are few and far between in this institution and when we get one we want to act on it. That is the intent of the Government.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Minister used as an example a company in Ottawa wanting to bid on a contract, as compared to a company in some other part of the country. He said that the company outside of Ottawa may hire an agent. The agent, of course, is covered by our registration proposal. We would also cover the company in Ottawa. At page 214 of the report we say: "Employees or officers of nongovernmental business organizations, nonprofit organizations, volunteer groups, single interest groups and foreign nationals who, for pay or other benefit, perform duties which, from time to time, include lobbying". Therefore, I can tell the Minister that we recognized the problem and tried to cover it with that.
We place the responsibility for enforcement firmly in the lap of the Assistant Deputy Registrar General. He will be empowered to check the files for deficiencies. We also say that he should be given investigatory powers and should receive complaints and enforce compliance. If he finds a deficiency or noncompliance, he must take the appropriate action, which would be to refer the matter to the appropriate authorities. The use of similar statutes, sanctions and punishments would also be set out in the Bill. We hope the appropriate sanctions will be in the Bill, such as banning them from registering.
Of course, that raises the very important question referred to by the Minister: what does the bureaucrat or MP do when someone phones to make an appointment to talk about a certain contract or project? Perhaps the onus could be put on the bureaucrat, MP or Senator to inquire first as to whether the lobbyist is registered. I do not know how this could be done, but it is something the Minister may consider. Possibly a phone call to the Assistant Deputy Registrar General could
confirm the registration since there are also time limits within which they must register and deregister. This places some onus on the individual MP and the bureaucrat to make sure that they protect themselves by determining if the lobbyist is indeed registered.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments made by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt. However, in terms of that onus, while we will meet it somehow, the concern is not to create a torrent of paperwork within some registry.
Personally, I see delegations and people in my office here as well as in Calgary. I see people in other parts of the country as a result of my travels on behalf of my Department. It is sometimes difficult to draw the distinction between what is lobbying and what is not and when we should check.
We are considering a variety of ways to deal with this problem in a way that will be administratively simple. This will take some time, but as usual, when we talk about general ideas and try to make them law, questions such as these with which we must deal inevitably arise.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Prior to resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) wishes to make a point of order.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if you were to ask, I believe you will find that there is unanimous consent in the House to revert back to presenting reports from standing and special committees.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there such unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


ELECTIONS, PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURE PRESENTATION OF THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the third report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedures.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


ELECTIONS, PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURE CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Rodriguez that the first report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure be concurred in.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to make a few comments in


February 12, 1987

this very important debate. I have read and studied the report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, chaired very ably by the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper). As the Minister stated, the report was unanimous, which is not a frequent occurrence in the House of Commons and its associated committees. I want to commend members of the committee and the Chairman on an excellent report which outlines very precisely and succinctly what needs to be done, as a result of a very thorough evaluation.
I cannot think of a more appropriate moment than now to discuss and hopefully take quick action on a very specific set of recommendations for one initiative that may in fact bring back some sense of reason, credibility and respect, not only to this institution but to public institutions generally and, perhaps most important, to the Government of Canada.
In the last few hours I have reviewed a number of headlines which remind us just how significant and important it is to get on with the recommendations in this report. For instance, one headline states: "Letter links Ministers, PMO to contract". This refers to the allegations of influence peddling and the involvement of Ministers of the Crown and members of the Prime Minister's Office in manipulating contracts through the system.
Another headline refers to the swirl of scandals surrounding various contracts that had been let, and the fact that many of them were not going to the lowest bidder, but appeared to be offered as a result of political involvement by certain lobby groups or individuals.
Another headline quotes the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney), who said just a few days ago that the Government had a grave problem of the public's perception of his Government's morality.
Indeed, we are discussing the morality of the Government itself in terms of how it deals with the letting of contracts, how the tendering process is set up and who uses certain influence in manipulating these contract procedures that result in a certain political outcome.
Another press clipping comments on the influence peddling charges against a certain Member of Parliament. Another headline refers to influence peddling in the awarding of a contract for the construction of a federal museum in Hull, Quebec. A headline from yesterday states: "RCMP Probing Tory Influence Peddling". This refers to people within the Prime Minister's Office.
Another headline in The Gazette in Montreal states: "Millionaire insists PM interfered in lawsuit".
We need not spend more time reminding ourselves of how complicated and confusing the situation has become. That is why I believe today's debate is most appropriate and I congratulate the committee members and the Chairman for their unanimous report which perhaps shows the way out of this morass.
Motions
I hope the Government will see fit to act now. My colleague, the Hon. Member Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), who began the debate for the New Democrats on this concurrence motion, reminded us that it was way back in September, 1985, when the Prime Minister said: "We will require, amongst other things, paid lobbyists to register and identify their clients". He went on to say that he had asked his colleague, the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to prepare on an urgent basis legislation to govern lobbying activity.
Of course, we want to accept the Prime Minister at his word. After all, if we cannot trust the Prime Minister's word, whose word can we trust? We heard the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) indicate that immediately upon his return from Africa the Prime Minister would make a statement on actions that the Government of Canada planned to take. He has been back for two weeks, but there is still no hint of a statement. I noticed today that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis) indicated that perhaps there would be no statement at all. One begins to wonder to what extent we can accept the word of the Prime Minister. He said back in September, 1985, that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am not convinced that the comments on this particular issue are relevant to the report.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I appreciate the point, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can make this link: When the Prime Minister indicated in September, 1985, that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would prepare on an urgent basis legislation to govern lobbying activity, we were expecting that such legislation would be on the floor of the House for debate within a matter of weeks or months.
You and I both know, Mr. Speaker, that if we want to avoid dealing with an issue, there is no better way to do that than to send it off to committee for study and after many weeks and months, perhaps we can study and evaluate the report and hopefully the problem will go away, if it is a messy situation. Did the Government bring in legislation on lobbying? No, it gave it to the committee, and what we are discussing today is its excellent report after a thorough examination.
I do hope, as a result of what has happened with the Government over the last few weeks, it will see the appropriateness of taking steps to set the whole process of lobbying right. The Government should not only do it right, but should set it up in such a way that it is perceived to be the right, thorough and just approach to the whole matter of lobbying.
The Minister who spoke previously, of course, is very interested in the generic drug Bill, the changes to the Patent Act which will, in my estimation, give some advantage to the foreign multinationals in the drug business. It is interesting to see who lobbied on behalf of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada, in other words, the 65 drug companies which wanted to have this change made to the

February 12, 1987
Motions
legislation in order to give them, in my opinion, a real edge in the market-place. They hired a firm called Government Consultants International. It is an Ottawa lobbying firm owned by former Newfoundland Premier Frank Moores and Halifax businessman Gerald Doucet. We all know that Mr. Moores had been a strong supporter of the Prime Minister since 1976 when he was one of the leaders of the "dump Joe Clark" movement before the 1983 leadership convention. After the Tories won the 1984 election, he opened up his lobbying firm. Here we have a very influential, well-known, significant Conservative setting up a lobbying firm in Ottawa on contract to the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada to, if you like, Mr. Speaker, peddle its influence with the Government, sell its influence, use its knowledge of various individuals, officials, politicians, and members of the Cabinet, perhaps even people in the Prime Minister's Office or Privy Council Office, to see what it can do on behalf of its clients, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada, which is made up of 65 multinational drug companies.
When Canadians see this kind of thing happen, they wonder whether or not their best interest will be represented, and this has been the core of discussions and debate which have gone on now both in the House and in the standing committee. I do not believe there is any question in anyone's mind these days that some way to deal with lobbying and lobbyists is not only long overdue but must be done quickly. I would like to read the following from the committee report itself:
We recommend that lobbying be defined as attempting to influence either directly or indirectly any governmental decision whether it be legislative or administrative.
We recommend that the act of lobbying government be specifically defined as to include:
(a)	attempting to influence the making or amending of legislation or regulations;
(b)	attempting to influence the making or changing of federal policies or programs;
(c)	attempting to influence federal decisions on the awarding of grants, contracts, contributions or any similar benefit;
(d)	attempting to influence federal appointments to boards, commissions and any other public office.
We recommend that in order to escape the problems which have plagued the United States federal lobbying act, approaches to influence the executive, Members of Parliament, which includes both Members of the House of Commons and the Senate and their staff, and the bureaucracy, be considered to be activities within the definition of lobbying.
I think that is an excellent recommendation. It lays out very thoroughly the process of lobbying which, I might add, has really taken on significant proportions in the last few years. When one looks carefully at the Ottawa phone book one finds various firms opening up. When one familiarizes oneself with the occupants of offices surrounding Parliament Hill, one can see that in the last handful of years, all sorts of agencies and groups have established lobbying offices. They are very upfront. It is an honourable process, whether it is the Canadian Bankers Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers Association, or even provincial Governments which now have offices set up so that the
concerns of the Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, and so on, can be watched as the various Bills and policies move through the Government and through the House of Commons.
Obviously, there is now a real need not only to define what we mean by "lobbying", which has been done very well by the committee, but we must also recognize who the lobbyist is. What is a "lobbyist"? We now agree what "lobbying" is. Again, we can take advantage of the excellent work done by the committee. The committee recommended:
-that for the purpose of registration, lobbyist be defined generally to be anyone who for compensation engages in lobbying activities directed at the executive, bureaucracy, Members of the House of Commons, the Senate and their staff. More specifically it includes:
(a)	those who for compensation represent third party interests directly or indirectly to government including those representing foreign nationals or foreign governments.
It goes on to say it would also include:
(b)	employees or officers of non-government business organizations, nonprofit organizations, volunteer groups, single interest volunteer groups and foreign nationals who for pay or other benefit perform duties which may from time to time include lobbying. The organization by which they are employed or with which they are associated should also be required to register.
It also includes:
(c)	those who initiate and those who are paid to organize mass mailing or advertising campaigns to disseminate material designed to influence government through public opinion.
I suppose what comes to mind are those full page advertisements one sees in the National Citizens Coalition attempting to mobilize public opinion to encourage the Government to move or not to move in certain directions. It also includes:
(d)	non-profit organizations, volunteer groups and single interest groups when they retain a paid lobbyist to represent their views to government;
Finally, it includes, and you will appreciate this, Mr. Speaker:
(e)	lawyers, accountants and other professionals when they represent clients in dealings with government primarily for the purpose of lobbying as defined in this Report.
Again, the committee lays out extremely clearly just what a "lobbyist" is. It lists the various categories in terms of fine tuning that definition. I think this is where we are going to run into the greatest difficulty. When the Government brings forward legislation, hopefully, at a very, very early time, the whole matter of registration becomes critical. The committee has recommended:
-that registered lobbyists be required to disclose:
(a)	their names; firm name, if applicable, and a contact person; addresses and telephone numbers;
(b)	names of clients and their place of business;
(c)	the issue or matter upon which the lobbying activity is to take place;
We recommend that lobbyists be prohibited from receiving compensation from clients which is contingent in any manner upon the outcome of the lobbying activity.
This is interesting because during committee hearings a number of witnesses thought there would be no problem in submitting their name for a registry but had some reluctance, however, about indicating who their clients were and they were
February 12, 1987

certainly reluctant to disclose the purpose of the lobbying, to say nothing about the moneys involved. However, as the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt pointed out, if we have this list, it is critical that it must be somehow monitored and kept up to date. We have to be able to ensure that the information is current and that it is accurate. We are asking the lobbyists to be quite specific in what it is they are lobbying for. Perhaps they should indicate the amount of money they are being paid for carrying out their lobbying activities.
So there we have it. In committee we had the recommendations of the Government in terms of how to register lobbyists, what the clear definition of lobbyist is and a definition of lobbying. I think that clearly lays out what the Government should do.
As I said at the outset of my remarks, the pall that hangs over this institution, institutions of government generally, and, perhaps most important, the pall that hangs over the Government of Canada must be changed. It must be set aside to enable us all to get on with carrying out the business of Canada. If the Government were to take an immediate initiative and bring forward legislation reflecting the views of this thoughtful committee report, it would be a step forward in terms of clearing the air. It would indicate that the Government is concerned and prepared to take action. We are fortunate in that the Government now has before it such a comprehensive, thorough and thoughtful report on which to base legislation which, hopefully, will ensue quickly.


Mr. Ravis:: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the rather hardnosed partisan approach the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) takes. It seems to me that we should be given credit for what is happening these days. The fact is that the Government has established this committee to look into this particular issue. Times are changing. I do not think this issue was addressed by the previous administration. The fact is that a committee has been established and the report was brought down just a matter of weeks ago. Why does the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap ask why we have not addressed this issue? We have barely come down with the report. The ink is hardly dry. Yet the Hon. Member suggests that there is a great hurry for us to act. I suggest that legislation dealing with the matter is just around the corner.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of my hon. friend. He makes a good point. I suspect that the type of issues to which I referred as set out in press clippings from, in a sense, the last few hours, that outline various alleged cases of influence peddling by various Members and government officials and the like is something which has been taking place since the time of Sir John A. Macdonald. Any student of history would be well aware of the long list of scandals that have brought down Governments and changed the course of history. Indeed, one of the themes of defeat of various Liberal and Conservative administrations was with respect to some type of scandal that involved lobbying activities. Quite frankly,
Motions
if one looks at the record one will see that for years the New Democratic Party and its predecessor, the CCF, have been calling for legislation of this type. We are still calling for it.
The Hon. Member is quite right and I give him credit. The Prime Minister promised that some action would be taken, and a study has now been done. As I said, we have been involved in this business long enough to know that if we want to dodge an issue we have just to study it. That is an acceptable way of dealing with a matter and it gives the illusion that action is being taken. I hope that the Hon. Member is right. I hope that just around the corner there will be legislation introduced. He can rest assured that if the legislation, which is hopefully around the corner, is a reflection of this thoughtful committee report then it will receive speedy passage by members of the New Democratic Party, and I suspect by all Members of the House.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of my hon. friend. An interesting event that took place recently was the introduction of a Bill with respect to the Patent Act concerning prescription drugs. I want the Hon. Member to think about how a lobby register would have helped to make that whole process a great deal more transparent. When the lobbying groups appeared before the committee I asked a standard question of each one. I asked: Was your firm hired to lobby to get changes to the Patent Act concerning prescription drugs? All of them refused to answer. They took the fifth amendment. No one would own up.
I wish to ask the Hon. Member this. If we had had a lobby registration program, does the Hon. Member think that it would have helped in making the whole process of a Bill coming before Parliament a lot more transparent? Would it have put those who oppose such changes on the qui vive as it were, allowing them to make representations to the Government before it actually pushed the Bill through Parliament and before it resorted to using a sort of hobnailed-boot approach in committee with respect to it?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has posed a most thoughtful question. There is no question that there is the view in the country, as the results of recent polls suggest, that by and large Canadians are suspicious of the changes proposed to the Patent Act which are presently before the standing committee. People are under the impression that this measure is not in their best interests and that it is not good legislation in that it will not help Canadians. As a matter of fact, it is specifically designed to help multinational drug companies based in the United States. That is the perception that most people have. As we all know, in the real world perception is critical. A great deal of that perception could have been changed for the better if the lobbying efforts had been up front. I noticed the cynicism in the various media reports which dealt with the acceptance by a former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs of a Liberal Government of a position to head an organization of foreign drug companies operating in Canada. Presumably the cynicism directed at her

February 12, 1987
was because she might use her influence with the bureaucracy and perhaps with her colleagues in other jurisdictions to facilitate the ends of the industry.
I wish to thank both Hon. Members for their interventions. I want to remind everyone that back in the 1960s it was a member of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Barry Mather, who first introduced a Bill on the subject of lobbying. More recently the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt introduced a Private Members' Bill to get this lobbying process under control. The former Member for St. John's East who recently left this House presented Private Members' Bills to establish a system of lobbying. The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Baker) also has a Private Members' Bill on the subject. There have been all sorts of actions taken over the years in which individuals have said that enough is enough, we have to clear the air. Their actions have said that we must ensure that democracy in Canada is transparent and that the work of government is transparent, honourable and aboveboard. The only way to ensure those ends is to have a process by which we define lobbying and lobbyists. There should be a register so that everything is above-board and on the table for everyone to see. In this way there will be no suspicion that influence peddling is a reality in the country. The report of the committee suggests that major steps be taken to eradicate such a situation. I only hope that it will be followed up rapidly by legislation.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify the record since comments were made with respect to Bill C-22. I have never personally, and to my recollection neither has my office, been lobbied by GCI on Bill C-22. I have been extensively lobbied by the Canadian Auto Workers, the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party which sent out some 300,000 letters, according to the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). In terms of the public knowing what is going on, I think the public should know I have never been lobbied by GCI or any of its principals. However, I have certainly been lobbied by the NDP and a great many of its sister organizations.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I appreciate the intervention by the Minister. Again, I do not want to suggest that the process of lobbying is bad, sinister, or wrong. It is appropriate that it takes place, and it is a reality. We wish it to be done in a manner that everyone understands. Then the rules will be clear concerning who are the lobbyists, the process, the clients, and what constitutes lobbying. I appreciate the intervention and the comments of the Minister. I do not want to suggest the process itself by Members, organizations, or lobby groups is in any way wrong or inappropriate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I am appalled at recent news stories which report that starving Palestinians in the besieged refugee camps of Bourj al-Barajneh and Shatila in Lebanon have requested permission to eat the flesh of dead human bodies in the camps as they have run out of dogs and cats to eat.
An estimated 40,000 Palestinian women, children and elderly are attempting to survive in conditions which defy logic and put in question human compassion. They are being bombarded with missiles and bombs, and they have no food or medicine. The International Red Cross is being prevented from entering the camps. I urge the Canadian Government to do all it can to facilitate the entry of the Red Cross into those camps and provide what relief assistance it can to alleviate the intense suffering of these victims of war.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my statement supports that of the Hon. Member who just spoke. A tragedy of unqualified proportions is developing in an area already fraught with human misery and political instability. According to authoritative eyewitness accounts, men, women and children have been reduced to subhuman conditions and have had to resort to eating cats, dogs, and rats in order to survive in the besieged Palestinian camps of southern Lebanon.
Since those refugee camps are under the jurisdction of the UN I strongly urge the House and the Government to use our good standing at the UN to request that body to undertake efforts to lift the siege and establish channels to supply humanitarian aid in the form of food and medical supplies to the defenceless victims.
On a larger scale we must intensify our efforts to secure a just solution to the Palestinian question under the aegis of an international peace conference.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the Government of Canada signed an extradition treaty with India. The treaty has caused concern and to some extent fear in the Canadian Sikh community since Sikhs believe it may be used in an inappropriate way against members of their community. They wish to be informed how it will be applied in Canada. They wish to be assured that it will not be abused. They wish to obtain guarantees that information about individuals is verified as accurate.
The reason they are concerned is that they have sought, through the leadership of various Sikh organizations and religious leaders from many Gurdwars, to obtain a meeting with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to discuss this and related issues. To date they have not been successful. While the Minister holds meetings with many cultural groups each month, for two and a half years he has refused to meet with representatives of the Sikh community. I urge the Minister to be more open about his dealings with India and agree to meet with representatives of the Sikh community immediately.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State (Youth) (Mr. Charest) simply did not consider the representations made to him by a number of student groups and non-profit organizations anxious to obtain Challenge '87 application forms before the end of 1986. The March 6, 1987 deadline has been announced too late and will certainly make it a lot harder for people who want to promote Challenge '87 or submit applications under this program.
In the case of non-profit organizations, planning is made more difficult because of the late deadline for project approval. As to students interested in participating in the program, again they will have to rush to find sponsors and obtain the required documents in time for the March 6 deadline. There can be only one reason-unacceptable to boot-to justify this situation: less money has been earmarked for Challenge '87 than was the case for Challenge '86, even though the Minister maintains that this year's program has been allotted the same budget as Challenge '86. Where are the $30 million set aside for the 1986 census which made it possible to provide a few more summer jobs for young Canadians?
Since the Minister of State (Youth) has failed to produce the application forms at an earlier date, I would ask him to increase considerably the funds for the Challenge '87 program,
if indeed the Minister has confidence in young people, and especially if he does appreciate their employment problems.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the latest economic indicators show that the economy of Quebec is sustaining its upward trend.


Mr. Malepart:: Not like the Conservatives!


Guy St-Julien: Since September 1984, 164,000 new jobs were created in Quebec compared with a total of 40,000 between the elections in 1980 and 1984. The unemployment rate dropped from 12.9 per cent in September 1984 to 10.8 per cent today. Total unemployment has dropped by 54,000.
Last year, housing starts reached their highest level in ten years. In 1986, housing starts increased 27 per cent compared with 1985 and 50 per cent compared with 1984.
The percentage of Quebec families living below the poverty line dropped from 16.8 per cent in 1984 to 15.8 per cent in 1985. In 1985, total sawmill production rose 12 per cent, compared with 1984. During the first nine months of 1986, production was 9.2 per cent higher than was recorded for the same period in 1985.
Mr. Speaker, the economy is in good shape, in Quebec and in Abitibi.
[DOT] * *



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, periodicals and press reports continue to emphasize that lead in the atmosphere, in our waters and in our foods, seriously affects the health of people, particularly our young people. It accumulates in the brain tissues, stunts growth, damages the nervous system, and produces high blood pressure and anemia. And yet we continue to allow one of the greatest lead polluters of all, the automobile, to continue to burn leaded fuel.
Canada allows the use of leaded fuel with an average lead content three times higher than that allowed in the United States and 20 times higher than that allowed in Europe. Let us stop dragging our feet. Hasten the conversion of leaded gas users to unleaded gas. Our health and that of our children is worth a lot more than an outdated automobile.

February 12, 1987



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the cornerstone of Canadian immigration policy is the family which assists an immigrant to adapt to Canada and strengthens our country with natural social ties. For many years Canadians have called for a more flexible definition of the family. Many feel painfully deprived when our immigration rules bar all but spouse, aged parents, and minor children.
In 1985 the New Democratic Party convention supported immigration by "all close family members including all children". In 1986 the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration tabled in Parliament unanimous recommendations to enlarge our idea of the family in immigration. It asked for a new classification of "assisted family" to include children or siblings of any age, married or unmarried, more points for close family relationship, and no absolute bar based on employment.
In October the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) said he would open up discussion on assisted family class. I call on him to begin that discussion now so that we may have new rules by the end of 1987.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are well aware of the importance of environmental issues to the future quality of life in Canada and on this planet. Residents of Parkdale-High Park feel especially close to these issues. Our proximity to Lake Ontario and the Humber River has made us particularly sensitive to water quality concerns, and we worry about the long terms effects of acid rain, PCBs, and whether the absorption of lead from automobile exhausts will have hazardous consequences for our children.
The draft legislation introduced recently by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) takes a realistic and positive approach to the control of toxic chemicals, sets standards for environmental protection, and takes substantial steps toward addressing the problems of air, land and water quality, providing a blueprint for a better tomorrow.
I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to work with the Minister to ensure that these proposals become legislative fact, and I invite all Members to join the Government in our fight to protect and enhance the quality of life for future generations.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Derek Ranee, President of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, on November 26, 1985, said that while coal operations must become more viable, this would not be done at the expense of workers. Seventeen men who are employed at the international coal piers in my riding have been told that their jobs will be terminated by April. They will be added to another 17 who have been laid off indefinitely. Each one of these men has 10 or more years with the Corporation. They have homes and families and have invested a considerable part of their lives in Devco and Cape Breton.
Devco is also proposing to lay off a further 240 people this year and 240 next year. The Government, while claiming to have created hundreds of jobs on Cape Breton Island, is in fact removing thousands. Mr. Ranee is operating on instructions from the Government, and these directions should be changed. Lay-offs should not be happening at Devco particularly in light of the recent statements by the Minister of Mines and Energy for Nova Scotia that Nova Scotia would require one million tonnes of additional coal in the future.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I recently had the pleasure and honour of visiting 312 of my Armed Forces constituents who are stationed at Lahr and Baden Soligen, West Germany. What was so apparent everywhere I visited was the high esteem in which all Canadian Armed Forces personnel are held. What could easily be overlooked, however, is the reputation that Canadian technology is earning. Our research and development, our innovative training installations and programs, and our reputation with NATO countries already training at Goose Bay are just a few examples of this.
We must continue this reputation and we must insist that Canadian industries remain leaders in state-of-the-art equipment required by Canada and other NATO countries. The leaders in this regard will undoubtedly be the fine industries in the riding of London-Middlesex.
February 12, 1987



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the Federal Environmental Assessment Review process which is going on in Labrador and Quebec with respect to low-level flying has resulted in some interim recommendations. The panel has recommended that the number of low-level sorties flown from Goose Bay not exceed the number flown in 1986 in any year until recommendations of the panel have been received and a decision has been taken with respect to their implementation.
The panel also recommended that DND adopt restrictions on minimum altitudes for certain areas and dates suggested by the panel. These restrictions are to be refined and improved through direct discussions between DND and representatives of the populations involved. It also recommended that DND install and publicize a toll-free number at its military communications centre at Goose Bay so that persons intending to be on the land can inform the authorities at Goose Bay to ensure that they are not over-flown.
I urge the Government, and particularly the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), to ensure that these interim recommendations are implemented. With respect to Recommendation No. 3, the toll-free number, I also want to say that it is really the responsibility of the military to let the native people know where they will be flying, not the other way around. That is part of the problem.



AEROSPACE INDUSTRY


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, the aerospace industry is alive and well in western Canada, including Winnipeg. Northwest Industries of Edmonton is truly a success story and continues to show our Government's commitment to advancing our position in high technology and particularly in the field of aerospace.
As a result of the CF-18 contract as many as 125 more jobs will be created in Edmonton. This contract, along with others received, will ensure the continuing growth and expansion of Northwest Industries for at least the next 20 years. This will provide economic strength for Edmonton and expertise for the benefit of all Canadians.
We in Edmonton are proud of Northwest Industries. Over the next two decades Canadian aerospace production levels will continue to grow and we are proud to be a part of this vital industry. Alberta is indeed represented in this growing field and we will continue to be leaders in this technology. The Government is looking after Alberta.



CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION APPLICATION TO REDUCE BROADCASTING OF COUNTRY MUSIC

Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I bring to your attention and to the attention of all Hon. Members an application filed before the CRTC by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters which will, if approved, slash Canadian country music content by 50 per cent-from 30 per cent to 15 per cent. I find this proposal completely unacceptable.
Canadian recording artists depend on air-play royalties for their survival. Without this income those artists could not afford hefty production costs and would have no choice but to abandon their careers. In Prince Edward Island as in many other regions, country music is an important part of our cultural identity.
I have received letters and repesentations from such groups as the Ellis Family Band, The Prince Edward Island Songwriters' Association, and Islander Records, all expressing opposition to this proposal. I trust that the CRTC will heed their advice and reject this ill-advised application.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, five key areas of Armed Forces life have received close scrutiny in recent times. These are the role of women in combat, the exclusion of homosexuals, the continuation of mandatory retirement, the recognition of common-law marriage, and the maintenance of physical and medical employment standards.
[DOT] (U15)
It is right that the Armed Forces reflect standards which have been established in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, it is absolutely necessary that the Canadian Armed Forces not be required to make changes which could reduce their defence capability. Their primary objective must be maintaining national security. Their task is hard enough without Parliament or Government making it impossible. Our challenge is to balance the rights of the individual and the efficiency of the Forces. Policies announced by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) show that that balance can be achieved with justice and realism.

February 12, 1987
Oral Questions



CUSTOMS AND EXCISE


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Christmas tree producers have yet to hear from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) about the 30 per cent duty on U.S. imports.
Last week, following a meeting attended by Canadian and U.S. producers, the American producers decided to take steps to have retaliatory action taken against Canadian imports.
If the Minister of Finance does not take action before March 2, he may be jeopardizing the very existence of a Canadian industry that is worth nearly $90 million, just to punish a U.S. industry that is worth only $3 million.
The 30 per cent countervail on U.S. imports was not a good idea, and the Minister of Finance should withdraw it immediately before the Americans decide to take action themselves by imposing a similar countervail, which will mean hard times and a loss of jobs for Canadian producers.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, The Toronto Sun reports today that a convicted rapist who is about to be released on mandatory supervision refuses to tell Metro Police where he will be living. The police consider this individual very dangerous for, while on a one-day pass in 1980, he committed rape in Montreal. Yet the Warden of Wark-worth Penitentiary has the audacity to say that the lack of an address is only a temporary problem. Has this individual lost his sense of responsibility toward Canadians? It seems that convicted criminals have more rights than law-abiding Canadians.
If this individual has no address, he should not be released. Canadians must be protected from the violent elements of our society. I call on the Government to investigate this matter immediately and severely reprimand those individuals who are responsible for this problem.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Yesterday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans told the House of Commons that he appreciated the action of the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon in standing up to France against France's overfishing. He said: "When the time comes we will see just how firm Canada can be".
Yesterday, in an act of appreciation, the Government of Canada scoured the Atlantic Ocean, spotted not one but six French factory freezer trawlers overfishing, and turned tail and ran. It then spotted one lonely 30-metre boat from St. Pierre and Miquelon and, like a schoolyard bully, sent that boat into port. That happened in my riding.
When will Canada begin treating the factory freezer trawlers from France, which are overfishing by 20,000 metric tonnes of Canadian fish, the same as it treats boats from Newfoundland, the boat from St. Pierre and Miquelon, and boats from the other Atlantic provinces?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Acting Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the time has come. This very day we are advising France that we have reason to believe that they are fishing more than the 6,400 tonnes of cod which they are permitted by us to fish in division 3PS. We are notifying them of that problem this afternoon. We are advising them that it is their responsibility to cease fishing and respect conservation requirements. We are advising them that if they choose to disregard the conservation needs of this fish stock, port privileges will be withdrawn. That is what we are doing in that regard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The wet fish trawler, La Goellette, from St. Pierre and Miquelon is, by the way, about 110 feet. It is authorized to fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. We have an observer on that vessel and have reason to believe that it has violated its by-catch. It is allowed to catch 1 per cent of fish as a by-catch while fishing for cod. We have reason to believe that it has exceeded that and is violating our regulations. Since we prosecute Canadian vessels for doing this, and did so last year, we are going to prosecute this vessel this year for the same violations if, in fact, it turns out to be true that it has violated our fishing requirements. We will enforce the law as it relates to our 200-mile economic zone.
[DOT] (M20)


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, asking questions of this Minister is like participating in an Abbot and Costello routine.


Some Hon. Members:: 
Some Hon. Members:: Lou! Lou!


NEWFOUNDLAND REPRESENTATION IN CABINET
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, why has the Government of Canada arrested a vessel from St. Pierre and Miquelon but refuses to stand up to factory freezer trawlers from France? This morning in St. John's, Newfoundland, the Acting Minister of Fisheries released a letter that was written to him by the Prime Minister in which he said: "I want to assure the people of Newfoundland, through you, that they can count on you-I will rely heavily on your advise... you are to be fully involved-your counsel will be sought". The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are wondering why, two years after the election, such a letter was necessary? Has Newfoundland had no voice around the cabinet table for the last 24 months? Have you been receiving a cabinet Minister's salary? What have you done to earn it with this Canada-France agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman passes on to other topics because he knows that we put some teeth into the enforcement of fishing limits in this country for the first time. We have observers on every foreign vessel that is permitted to fish in our territory. That was not done under the Liberals. We have acquired a twin-engine helicopter for offshore surveillance. That was not done under the Liberals. We armed our patrol boats and we are going to have armed boarding parties. That was not done under the Liberals. The very people who are now so bellicose in opposition were meek and mild little toadies when they were over here in the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: While I have been around the cabinet table I have been helping to secure the Atlantic Accord for Newfoundland, the Newfoundland offshore development fund-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: -I have been helping to secure assistance for the Hope Brook gold mine. I have been helping to get ad hoc assistance for inshore fishermen. I have been arranging the purchase of vessels for the maritime fisheries. I have a whole long list, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Try again, Tobin.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I will tell you what was not done under the Liberals. We did not sell out the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because we lacked on backbone. We did not try to make up in volume and bluster what we lacked in courage. That was not done under the Liberals.
Oral Questions


CANADA-FRANCE 1972 TREATY-NEWFOUNDLAND PREMIER'S POSITION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, how can the Government continue to insist that the dilemma in which it finds itself, because of a lack of backbone, was caused by the 1972 treaty, when his colleague and friend whom he saw last Friday, the Premier of Newfoundland, said this morning in response to the Prime Minister's letter:
I am-concerned about the statement in the Prime Minister's letter that appears to imply a link between the 1972 Fishing Treaty and a Canadian obligation to provide cod to France under that treaty. Article 2 of the 1972 Treaty does not obligate Canada to provide cod in any particular Fishing zone-
Why have you caved in?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any communciation from the Premier of Newfoundland. Perhaps he is in intimate contact with the Member who just asked the question and has apparently supplied him with some letter or opinion he has given in reply to the Prime Minister's letter. I say that a finer letter was never received by any member of the Cabinet. The Prime Minister has said that the outcome of this whole negotiation must be in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada "or there will be no deal". Eat your heart out!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLOCATION OF COD QUOTA TO FRANCE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, we know from the extraordinary meeting of the Premiers the other day who was not involved in the decision to allocate codfish to the east and northeast coast of Newfoundland. Canadians want to know who was involved in the allocation of a cod quota for the French to the north of Newfoundland off the Labrador coast, for the first time in our history. My question is directed to the Acting Minister of Fisheries. Was he involved in this giveaway and did he notify the Newfoundland Government?

And was the Member for Manicouagan in favour of the quota for his region, which was also handed out to the French?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Acting Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, that is foolishness!
[DOT] (U25)

As to who was involved in those discussions during the period from January 13 to January 16, representatives of the Government of Newfoundland were involved in all the negotiations with France in this matter. It was agreed-and they agreed as well-that Canada should offer at that time 3,000 tonnes of fish to St. Pierre and Miquelon vessels in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which we have to do under the infamous 1972 treaty entered into by the past Liberal administration,

February 12, 1987
Oral Questions
and three thousand tonnes of northern cod in the area of 2GH, which is up at the far end, the line between Labrador and Greenland. That was agreed to by those who were present there to advise, and by the representative of the Government of Newfoundland, who was present as well, three thousand tonnes in 2GEI. The subsequent agreement settled on 3,200 tonnes, just 200 tonnes more. So that is the answer to the hon. gentleman's question.
I might say, while I am the Acting Minister, that I agree he is certainly acting.


George Baker: In other words, the Minister is saying he agrees with giving the French a quota for the first time to the north of Newfoundland. Now we also have them with a quota on the west coast of Newfoundland. We have the French fleet on the south coast of Newfoundland. We have the French all around Newfoundland.


MINISTER'S POSITION
George Baker: I want to ask the
Acting Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a question. We all know he is trying to learn French. Does he not realize that Newfoundland fishermen are not in agreement with his version of French immersion? Why did he agree with this agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the farmers who are among us here today will realize what the Hon. Member is immersed in.
[ Translation]
You are crazy!

We are not going to be surrounded on all sides by the French trawlers because, as I have just informed this honourable House, if France chooses to disregard the conservation needs of the fish stocks in 3PS, for the first time, including the last 20 years-and we know who was in power most of that time-we will withdraw port privileges from French vessels. They are already not allowed to trans-ship fish in any Newfoundland port. If the fishermen of St. Pierre and Miquelon need support from us to stop overfishing, they will get that support from us because we have the backbone that the last administration never had.


CANADA-FRANCE AGREEMENT
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the Canada-France negotiations. I am certain the rest of the country does not find this issue as funny as the government Members in the House.
The Acting Minister of Fisheries claims he is the lead Minister in the negotiations. At the same time the Prime Minister indicates there will be a fully involved Minister from Newfoundland, but the people leading the negotiations will be the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans. From the Government's point of view, is it possible for the Deputy Prime Minister to indicate to this House who is responsible for this sell-out?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there is no sell-out. The lead Minister in these negotiations is the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is always the lead Minister in international negotiations. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and I will be fully involved. There has been no sell-out. There is going to be no sell-out. There is not going to be any buy-out. But one has to wonder what is the policy of the New Democratic Party? We had the Hon. Rambo Broadbent threatening gunboat action. Is that still the policy of the New Democratic Party of this country?
'


INVOLVEMENT OF PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the second part of my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Prime Minister indicated that the provincial Governments would be fully involved and consulted in these negotiations. Can the Secretary of State tell the House why the Prime Minister indicated that the Government will still give access to northern cod stocks to France in the agreement, the matter which has so grievously offended the people of Newfoundland and the other Atlantic provinces? Why will this sell-out continue in spite of the Prime Minister's assurance that these people will be listened to?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker-


John R. Rodriguez: Crosbie, sit down. Who asked you?


John Carnell Crosbie: -the Hon. Member who asked the question must have been away, just as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been away. We are glad to have him back in the House because of his outstanding performance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: I'll bet you are!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members opposite do not want to get the answers. They only like to make the innuendoes, the slanders, the assaults, and the travesties.
The answer is that there has been no sell-out. The Government of Newfoundland itself agreed to a 3,000 tonne allocation of northern cod in zone 2GH. There may or may not be any further allocation.
As the Prime Minister has said, there will be nothing further unless France agrees to binding arbitration on the boundary in the disputed zone and unless the problem of overfishing is solved and a reasonable quota agreed upon in zone 3PS on the south coast of Newfoundland. That is what the Prime Minister
February 12, 1987

said. That is what he meant. That is what is going to be done. There will be no sell-out.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONSULTATION
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I suppose my question has to be directed to the Acting Minister of Fisheries. I ask again about the process of consultation with the provinces.
Will the Minister tell the House why the Government is failing to listen to the Premiers of the Atlantic provinces? Why is the Government failing to follow their direction? Can he answer this question in a calm and rational manner rather than acting as lead clown in a circus?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, no one will ever accuse the Hon. Member of having the wit to be a clown.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: It doesn't take wit to be a clown.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Tell us all about it, Rambo.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Premiers themselves at their conference on Monday in Toronto suggested that the interim agreement, which is the only agreement provided for negotiations, be reviewed. We are arranging that review. The Minister of Fisheries is to meet with the Ministers of Fisheries of the five eastern provinces on Monday in Moncton to have that review. There is a meeting today of officials in Halifax who are starting the review process. We are quite prepared to do what they wish and to review it.
Our Prime Minister has given the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the fishing industry, and the union representatives his personal assurance that their participation will be continuous-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Ouellet:: What a stupid reaction. Resign!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You are just a joke.


André Ouellet: You are a disgrace to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal.


John Carnell Crosbie: Are there any other questions, Mr. Speaker?


André Ouellet: What a stupid Minister. You are a disgrace to Parliament.
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: I haven't had a question from you in a dog's age.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask all Members to be quiet enough to enjoy the next question and exchange, which I think will be on a different subject. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Privatization announced the sale of Teleglobe Canada yesterday. An unfortunate cloud has now descended with the naming of the successful bidder, Memotec Data. Although Memotec was only advised yesterday that it had won this contract, questionable trading took place on the Montreal and Toronto Stock Exchanges in the week prior to the announcement of the sale.
Will the Minister conduct an immediate investigation with respect to who in the Government, who in the Crown corporations, or who on the ministerial or departmental staff knew the name of the successful bidder and when they knew it? Will the Minister undertake to advise the House of the information she may find?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, under the Canada Business Corporations Act the Director has the responsibility of investigating these matters since Memotec is a federally incorporated company. It is under active investigation and the Director will take the appropriate action if his investigations so lead him to conclude.


KNOWLEDGE OF SALE
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it is not necessarily a leak that is out there in the general world; there are concerns inside. My supplementary question is again directed to the Minister of State for Privatization. Why did the Minister not hold off the announcement of this sale since the sales on the Stock Exchange were known a week ago? Why did she not allow the investigation to go ahead instead of pursuing the sale and allowing the besmirching of the reputation of a reputable company? Will the Minister, who is supposedly the only knowledgeable person-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Sheila Finestone: -about this sale, undertake to find out who, where, when, why and how this information got out? There was trading even before the announcement took place.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, just so that the Hon. Member will

February 12, 1987
Oral Questions
understand the procedures that occur around this type of matter, I should explain that it is routine for a stock exchange to conduct an inquiry not after there has been speculative activity but after there has been speculative activity and an announcement. This automatically triggers the investigation which my hon. colleague talked about. Among the matters that will be investigated are the matters about which the Hon. Member has asked.
While this is a routine matter from the position of the stock exchange, and it is done in many cases in which this happens, I take the matter seriously. I asked my Deputy Minister to meet with the President of the stock exchange this morning, which she did. We have been promised that the matter will be expedited. We expect that the results will be announced shortly. They will be undertaking the steps suggested by the Hon. Member. As well, I might say how well received this transaction has been.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister was running for Parliament in the by-election in Central Nova he was reported to have said that Ottawa, and I want to use his exact words, should use its "colossal influence" in the Department of Supply and Services and the CNR to guarantee that the industries of the area, Nova Scotia, benefit. Last weekend the Minister of National Revenue announced to Nova Scotia Tories that CN had agreed to purchase rail from Sydney Steel Corporation. Can the Government confirm this? If it cannot, will it at least make the commitment that the CN will guarantee the purchase of rail from Sysco in order that Phase II modernization can go ahead?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the hon. gentleman's recent interest in this topic. Naturally, CN has agreed to purchase rail from Sysco. CN has been the main purchaser of rail from Sysco for many years. Under our administration of the Government of Canada it will continue to be one of the main purchasers, if not the main purchaser, of rail from Sysco.
I can tell the House that probably today, but certainly within a matter of hours, CN will be entering into a memorandum of agreement with Sysco covering its traditional share of rail requirements for standard carbon rail, low alloy rail and alloy rail, so long as the level of quality, competitive pricing and delivery performance are satisfactory, commencing with the order year that starts August 1. When Sysco meets CN's specifications for head-hardened rail, it will be receiving orders
from CN for this type of rail under the same conditions. Prices will be negotiated annually-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


CAPE BRETON LABOUR COUNCIL-REQUEST FOR MEETING WITH PRIME MINISTER
John R. Rodriguez: My supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Cape Breton Labour Council is very concerned about the Sysco modernization, the Devco lay-offs, and other regional industrial problems in Cape Breton. The Council sent a telegram to the Prime Minister requesting a meeting with him when he is in Cape Breton this weekend to open the Winter Games. Can the Deputy Prime Minister respond to the Labour Council and give the assurance that the Prime Minister will schedule a meeting with the representatives of the workers of Cape Breton to talk about these very serious problems that they are having?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has already heard of the action that has been taken by the Minister of Transport in terms of working out an arrangement for the traditional supply of railway steel from Sysco. I had the opportunity to meet with workers from Sysco, and the related unions in that particular area. They indicated that they would be satisfied with that type of arrangement. I am not aware of the invitation that has been sent. Certainly the Hon. Minister of National Revenue has met with the workers, as has the Hon. Minister of Transport, and myself. I am sure that if the opportunity presents itself the Prime Minister would be prepared to meet with them as well.


John R. Rodriguez: I will send you a copy of the telegram.


TELEGLOBE CANADA
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the privatization of Teleglobe Canada and has to do with the Toronto and Montreal stock exchanges investigation into speculation on Memotec shares. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister whether, before making public the decision to sell Teleglobe to Memotec, she took steps to ensure formally that none of the Government or public service officials who had privileged information had directly or indirectly benefited from such information to buy Memotec shares?
February 12, 1987


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I do not go around examining public servants all the time to make sure that they are doing their job, because they do their job.
Let me say that the decision on behalf of the Government of Memotec's purchase of Teleglobe was made after the market closed on Tuesday night. The stock exchanges were immediately informed. Up until then, there had been absolutely no decision taken. As it always does, our Department did a very fine job of ensuring that everything was kept very discretely and very securely.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, if no investigation has been made, no-one can know the truth, so I should like to ask this to the Minister.

Would the Minister advise the House if she has already transmitted to the Toronto or Montreal stock exchanges a list of the names of all the people in the Government, or the Public Service, who were privy to the information that Memotec was to be recommended as the successful purchaser of Teleglobe?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have already told the House that my Deputy Minister is meeting with stock exchange officials to assist in this investigation. She was on the plane this morning by ten o'clock. We will co-operate in every way with the stock exchanges. It is very important that this investigation be completed appropriately.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister will know that during his absence The Gazette revealed that the airline company, Propair, which at that time was partially owned by the Government of Quebec, played a key role last year in a CIA linked clandestine operation to supply arms to the Contras. We have since had further evidence that a Montreal firm, Trans World Arms, has also been involved in the sale of arms ultimately reaching the Contras.
Has the Minister not made clear what the Canadian Government policy is vis-a-vis Central America? Do businesses and provincial Governments not know what the
Oral Questions
government policy is? Will the Minister inform the House of his plans to ensure that they understand the policy?


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask that Hon. Members ask the question once, and not over again. I would ask that Ministers give their response once, and not over again.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Government is very clear with regard to Central America. If the alleged actions occurred, they are against the policy of the Government. Both actions are being investigated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. When the Solicitor General or I have information to convey to the House on the results of those investigations, that information will be made available in the usual way. I repeat that the actions to which reference has been made, if they occurred, are against the policy of the Government of Canada.
I also wish to say that a letter was sent this morning by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway which suggested that the Government of Canada had some knowledge with regard to one of those transactions. That insinuation made by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway is false.


CANADIAN ARMS TRADE
Pauline Jewett: The
Minister himself said in response to the Special Joint Committee's Recommendation No. 17 that "The Government has the global arms trade under constant scrutiny". Why does the Government not have the Canadian arms trade under constant scrutiny? Will the Minister provide a full public investigation of this trade?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, first, we have the Canadian arms trade not only under constant scrutiny, but it is now operating under a much stricter regime concerning the export and import control legislation than was the case before. The Hon. Member will know that on several occasions I have requested her Party, which has complained about this matter, to make specific recommendations as to ways in which we might tighten that regime.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You said to refer it to the committee, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: I have received nothing but silence.


Pauline Jewett: You are avoiding the whole issue.


Charles Joseph Clark: Because the New Democratic Party does not want to contribute-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

February 12, 1987
Oral Questions
[ Translation]

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. ANDRfi BERTHELET, PRESIDENT OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF CITY OF MONTREAL


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wish to draw to the attention of the House of Commons the presence in the gallery of Mr. Andre Berthelet, President of the Municipal Council of the City of Montreal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKER OF THE SASKATCHEWAN LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to the attention of all Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Arnold Tusa, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Province of Saskatchewan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. This morning, we met with representatives of retired members of the Armed Forces and representatives of early retirees in Quebec, who were unanimous in saying that the Conservative Government's decision to cut unemployment insurance benefits for early retirees was unacceptable, unfair and discriminatory. They also reminded us that last year, the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced on December 5 here in the House that the Government would make some changes in this respect. They now want to know why, after two months, the Government has yet to meet its commitment. People have not been reimbursed and no changes have been made.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration is well aware of the situation, and he was telling the truth. It is just a matter of time before a response will be forthcoming.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, people are getting impatient. This problem has been with us for a year. It has now been one
year since people lost $10,000. It has now been two months since the Government committed itself, and it says we should be patient.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF RETIRED MILITARY PERSONNEL
Jean-Claude Malépart: My
supplementary is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Representatives for retired members of the military would like to know why the Minister, who is supposed to defend the interests of the Armed Forces, is letting his Government reduce or take away altogether unemployment insurance benefits for people who, as we all know, have to retire from the service at the age of 55, and now when they look for another job, they are deprived of unemployment insurance benefits. Why doesn't the Minister of National Defence defend the members of the Armed Forces here in Canada?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the whole issue is now under consideration, and a response will soon be forthcoming.


REPORTING OF AIDS DISEASE IN MANITOBA AND NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has come to my attention that all provinces in Canada except Manitoba and Newfoundland are covered under legislation which obligates them to make AIDS a notifiable disease. Even though those two provinces have been reporting AIDS cases to the proper medical authorities they are not obligated to do so by law. Can the Minister tell us when we can expect those two provinces to be covered under the legislation, in the interest of establishing a complete and more effective national AIDS surveillance network?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The question of AIDS being a reportable disease falls within provincial jurisdiction. The Member's information is correct, Newfoundland and Manitoba do not list AIDS as a reportable disease. All other provinces and territories do. While it falls within provincial jurisdiction, the Department of National Health and Welfare and our advisory committee very strongly urge that it be required rather than voluntary.
February 12, 1987


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he please tell the House what date the Government found out that a Canadian company, Trans World Arms of Montreal, with connections in Miami, acted as an arms broker and bought arms in Portugal which were shipped under forged Guatemalan documents to the Nicaraguan contras?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP began an investigation in January shortly after the appearance of information and allegations in a Montreal newspaper. The Hon. Member, as well as conveying some false insinuations by letter, has conveyed some information which we have passed on to the RCMP and it will constitute a part of their investigation.


REQUEST THAT MATTER BE RAISED WITH PORTUGUESE AUTHORITIES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will find in the information I have sent him that the same kind of forged documents used by Trans World have also been traced to Standford Technologies, the firm of Richard Secord and Albert Hakim who were involved with Lieutenant-Colonel Oliver North. We raised the Propair matter and now the Trans World matter. Is the Minister prepared to go to the Portuguese authorities to get them to provide the Canadian Government with all the files relating to the shipment of arms through Trans World Arms, allegedly to Guatemala but really to the contras?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me try to make this as clear as I can. Any Canadian companies shipping arms to those destinations do so contrary to Canadian policy. Whether or not they do so contrary to Canadian law is a matter which will be determined by an RCMP investigation. There is now an active RCMP investigation. If it is consistent with that investigation for me to make the kind of inquiries requested by the Hon. Member, then I shall.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works and concerns the Drummondville Public Works contract. Two days ago the Minister said in the House that the Brodilaf group submitted the lowest tender. He has now been corrected twice, once by his Chief of Staff and again this
Oral Questions
morning by the Deputy Minister who admitted that the other bid was cheaper. Will the Minister now admit he was wrong and the staff recommendation in favour of the Hama group was changed, either by the Minister or by Treasury Board, in favour of someone else? Will he not admit that only a public inquiry could clear the air in this whole matter?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this is probably the fifth time the Hon. Member has put that question to me. I have clearly indicated that the tender by the Brodilaf group for rental was the lowest of the two competing bids. I then said, and I repeat, there were other considerations. I made available the 3,000-page file this morning to my learned friend for his scrutiny. I have indicated that I will make that file available to the press. The decision was made on the recommendation of the public servants at head office and approved by Treasury Board. It is the best bargain in the situation.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION WHY HAMA COMPANY DID NOT OBTAIN CONTRACT
Don Boudria: This morning, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister of Public Works told us that when the first tenders were called two of the three bidders were withdrawn, leaving only the Hama Company. In the second tender call Hama submitted the lowest bid.
Considering the fact that the Hama Company won twice, Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister explain that the contract was awarded to somebody else?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, while I think two or three different words were used, the question is the same and the answer is the same.


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What will be the Government's response to the reappearance of newspaper advertisements inviting Canadians to South Africa for brainwashing sessions, in violation of the voluntary sanctions against travel to South Africa?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I regret those advertisements. I regret that some newspaper publishers are prepared to put profit ahead of principle. They are, nonetheless, within the law and we do not intend to change the law in that regard.

February 12, 1987
3374	________________________________
Oral Questions


IMPORTATION OF STEEL CASTINGS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister not agree that it is time to impose mandatory sanctions, especially given that situations such as the following have occurred. In January CN and CP received 77,000 pounds of steel castings from South Africa. That purchase not only indirectly supports apartheid, but is at the cost of steelworkers' jobs in this country. Are we going to sacrifice Canadian jobs in support of apartheid or are we going to impose mandatory sanctions so this sort of thing will not recur?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have sanctions with respect to steel. I want to express my appreciation and that of the Prime Minister to the President of the Brotherhood of Railway Transport Workers who has drawn to our attention the fact that the regulations now in place do not deal with the import of castings. That is a loophole in the law and we are going to change it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. I would ask Hon. Members to tighten up their questions. We are getting close to the end of Question Period.


UNITED STATES PETITION AGAINST CANADIAN STEEL EXPORTS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. As the Minister was probably informed yesterday, a petition was filed in front of the International Trade Commission of the U.S. Department of Commerce against exports of Canadian steel. The petition is totally spurious and based upon alleged exports which Canadian companies like Stelco have not made for the last year or two. Does the Government intend to make representations to the U.S. Government to have that petition rejected outright, based as it is on totally phoney and spurious grounds?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, this is a routine trade action taken by the Americans and it will be dealt with in a routine manner.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Minister that is the answer she gave on the softwood lumber case. That did not turn out to be too routine.
We now have a petition on potash and a petition on steel. Does this not represent a clear pattern of trade harassment
which totally goes against the commitments made by the U.S. Government as far back as the Shamrock Summit and as recently as three weeks ago at the Bush meeting? Can the Government not require the U.S. Government to live up to its commitments to end this kind of trade harassment? The U.S. has the power to reject these petitions outright and right now.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has finally woken up to the reality of trade harassment. I again remind him that that is the reason we are entering a bilateral trade negotiation with the U.S. He is unhappy with that answer, but we repeatedly say as long as the existing trade remedy laws remain in place Canadian industries will be subject to this kind of harassment.


REFUGEES
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration to whom I have given notice. As the Minister knows, the Government is quoted in yesterday and today's papers as seeking methods of dealing with Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugee claimants entering Canada from the United States. Will the Minister assure this House that Salvadorans and Guatemalans from the United States seeking refugee status in Canada will not be stopped or sent back to the United States?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, genuine refugees will not be sent back to face death or torture. However, temporary measures are being examined in order to treat abusers harshly.


DEPORTATION LIST INQUIRY
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister knows, there is no way of telling who is a genuine refugee until he has been examined. Will the Minister say whether these people will be allowed to make their claim in Canada? I am particularly asking whether the Minister will assure this House that the B-l list or the no deportation list will not be abolished, or that El Salvador and Guatemala will not be removed from the list as a means of preventing them from making their claims.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, there are a number of temporary measures that are being examined. When appropriate, we will make those known.
February 12, 1987


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of State for Immigration. It concerns the firing of immigration officer John Quigley. It is clear that Mr. Quigley's firing on the evidence of the dismissal letter was politically motivated as a response to the embarrassment that the information caused the Government, and the Minister specifically. Why did the Minister permit Mr. Quigley to be victimized in such a way by the actions of his Rambo-style senior officials simply to protect his own political reputation and that of his Government?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Quigley has a right to present a grievance. That right has been exercised. From what I understand, the grievance is being heard this afternoon.


REQUEST THAT DEPUTY MINISTER ACCEPT GRIEVANCE PRESENTATION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister can make a political decision to fire an employee, he should have the courage to take a political decision to rehire him instead of washing his hands of this affair.
Given that the very first step in the grievance procedure is an acceptance or a rejection by the Deputy Minister, will he not do the honourable thing and order his Deputy Minister to accept the grievance and automatically overturn what is a very outrageous and unfair decision for Mr. Quigley?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, it is inappropriate for me to comment further until Mr. Quigley has his grievance heard today.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Skeena. One short question, please.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I am sure he is aware that next month the First Ministers' Conference on the Constitution, aboriginal rights and self-government, will be held. At this point in time it appears that only the lowest common denominator will be the likely result. Will the Deputy Prime Minister today give his assurance that within the next few days the federal Government's position will be released so that the provinces and the public of Canada will have a chance to rally round and see that Canada's first citizens get the kind of consideration they so rightfully deserve at this constitutional conference?
Point of Order-Mr. Riis


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is fully aware, the ministerial meetings leading up to the FMC will continue and at that time discussions will take place among all participants. What the Hon. Member must remember is that in order to change the Constitution of Canada there is a formula in place that calls for 50 per cent of the population and seven provinces to agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Last question, the Hon. Member for Abitibi.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Mayor Noah Inukpuk and the residents of the village of Umuijaq north of Kuujjuaroapik in Abitibi want to have adequate postal services immediately because they now have to wait for a whole month before getting their mail, including family allowances, old age security pensions, and other important documents.
Here is my question, Mr. Speaker: The Canadian Government is committed to assist the Inuit under the terms of Section 6.4 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and Canada Post will have to dispatch an official to this village to settle these problems immediately.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the question of the Hon. Member for Abitibi has to do with a very important matter. I got in touch with Canada Post management and was advised that postal services are now provided through an exchange of mail bags in the village mentioned by the Hon. Member. Management are now examining the volume of mail before deciding what kind of services are required in this village. As soon as a decision has been made I will get back to the Hon. Member.


POINT OF ORDER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would not want to mislead the House inadvertently. He made reference to the fact that he had requested and not heard the New Democratic Party on suggestions for changes to the

February 12, 1987
Business of the House
export of arms. If the Minister refers to his mail of September 29 he will know that he received correspondence suggesting that this whole matter be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade so that committee members could give the attention that such a topic deserves. I would encourage the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to give that matter some consideration.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in the same spirit of a point of order, sooner or later members of the New Democratic Party will have to accept some responsibility to put forward specific suggestions and not content themselves with empty cant and criticism.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt this fight between the Conservatives and the New Democrats for third place-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -but I feel that I should rise on a point of order to ask the Government House Leader to tell us what business he intends to call for the next seven days of sitting time of the House. In particular, does the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) still intend to give a report to the House on his trip to southern Africa, and when will that be?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the order of business for the next few days will be Bill C-38, an Act to privatize Teleglobe, Bill C-21, the Shipping Conference Exemption Act, Bill C-12, amendments to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act; C-2, Canagrex, and C-6, the Atlantic Accord. We hope that we can have all those through by Wednesday next so we can deal with the Budget with the decks clear.
In so far as the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) statement is concerned, as I indicated last week, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, (Mr. Clark) has just returned today and the Prime Minister has not had a chance to confer with him. After that is done, I would think that an appropriate statement will be made.


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment, please. I will now hear a point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). After that, the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault) will have the floor.


POINT OF ORDER
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order with some caution and care because it involves the office of the Chair. You will recall, Sir, that two days ago the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) raised a point of order regarding the kind of terminology and language used in the House. He urged you at that time to check with Beauchesne, specifically Citation 55 and subsequent citations regarding, again, the kind of language that is used in the House.
Today the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) used the phrase: "besmirching the reputation of a company". I am concerned enough when we use language with respect to each other that does not enhance the conduct of the House. It concerns me even more when innocent citizens and companies outside the House are affected by the language used here.
There has been nothing to indicate that the company in question did anything wrong or that anyone else did anything wrong with respect to that company's operations. Therefore, I think it is not helpful for Members of the House to use phrases like "besmirching the reputation of a company" which in fact then besmirches the reputation of a company. I would ask Your Honour to look at that practice.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the point raised by my hon. friend, if you look at rulings by Speakers as to what language is permissible in the House, you will find language far more colourful-
[ Translation]
You will find terms far more expressive-

-than the word "besmirch". I submit that there is nothing in the precedents on language which is parliamentary or unparliamentary to indicate that the word "besmirch" should be ruled unparliamentary.
If I am not mistaken, the citations on unparliamentary language deal particularly with words or phrases used by Hon. Members with regard to other Hon. Members. Just the other day when I raised the concern that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader had used the word "slanderous" in this House, a word which a previous Speaker had ruled to be unparliamentary, the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader was that the words were not directed to a particular Member of the House and that it was all right to use a word which was otherwise unparliamentary provided it referred to Members of the House as a group.
I make this point to argue that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader has confirmed what I have
February 12, 1987

just said, which is that, with the exception of certain people referred to by Beauchesne as being members of a protected group including members of the Royal family, judges and one or two other categories, the precedents with respect to unparliamentary language apply not to the public at large, individual members of the public or companies, but rather to Members of this House.
Finally, my recollection of the words used by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal is not that they were in any way an attack on the company in question but a plea to the Government to act in such a way that the conduct of the Government itself or officers of the Government could turn out to besmirch the name of a reputable company, and I do hope that that will not happen. There was nothing I heard in the words of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal that sounded to any reasonable person, if 1 may say so, as an attack on the company in question.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, my recollection of the remarks of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) is in keeping with the recollection of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). The Hon. Member for Mount Royal in no way put into question the integrity of Memotec or in any way besmirched or maligned the name of that particular company. She simply indicated that the Government should have waited before announcing the decision to sell Teleglobe to Memotec until the investigation into the alleged insider trading was complete. I would ask the Hon. Member who raised the point of order to review the "blues". Upon review of the "blues", I am certain he will agree with me that the Hon. Member for Mount Royal in no way called into question the good name of Memotec.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, just as briefly, I would reiterate what I said the other day in support of my colleague. I suggest to the House that our parliamentary privilege of immunity within this House is a time-honoured tradition and in order to deserve it, we have to treat it with respect and not abuse it or hide behind it.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), who is a senior and very highly respected Member of this House, for bringing the matter to the attention of the Chair. I listened with care to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), to the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) and to the Parliamentary Secretary.
I think the essence of the complaint made by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta is that when a question seems to carry an innuendo of wrongdoing, naturally there is a certain reaction from other Hon. Members. I took it that the Hon. Member hoped that all Hon. Members, in asking questions, would at least base their questions on some known facts more than on suspicions. I think that is the point the Hon. Member was making.
Question of Privilege-Mr. Guilbault
I listened with care to the representations of the Hon. Member for Windsor West and the Hon. Member for York South-Weston. According to my recollection of what the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) said, she was not in fact trying to besmirch the reputation of the company but rather to urge the Government to do something so that the company's reputation might not be besmirched. One would probably have to examine exactly what was said, but I think the point taken by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta is one that the Chair has heard before and is in the interests of fair play.
Of course, I am cognizant of the fact that the Hon. Member for Windsor West is also a very senior Member of the Chamber and has the immediate responsibility of considering the rules and traditions of this place. He speaks eloquently and with authority. I do not think, under the circumstances, that the word "besmirch" is in itself unparliamentary.
I am assisted by the interventions that have been brought before me. I would urge all Hon. Members to take into account what their colleagues have to say. At times, Hon. Members might feel that something does offend or is not as clear as it should be, and I would hope that all Hon. Members keep that in mind in the conduct of their affairs.
There is another important matter to which the Chair has made reference. I recognize the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault).


PRIVILEGE
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) informed the House he was in possession of a document, dated May 7, 1986, that came from my office at the House of Commons in Ottawa, a document he showed to the press.
Mr. Speaker, I can prove I was in my riding on May 5, 1986, so I could not have met anyone in Ottawa that day to talk about the Canada Employment Centre in Drummondville, as was mentioned in the document.
I did not draft or sign or send the document referred to by the Hon. Member for Shefford, and I never saw it until yesterday. Legal action will be taken against the person who originated this document and this political smear campaign.
Mr. Speaker, I demand an apology from the Hon. Member for Shefford on the floor of the House, because he has abused his privileges as a parliamentarian to indulge in political smear tactics. If the Hon. Member for Shefford believes I have done something illegal, he should go and prefer charges against me outside the House.

February 12, 1987



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Motions
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) is away right now and obviously not in a position to speak to a question of privilege.
Normally, the Member who is on the receiving end of this kind of statement is given a chance to reply. However, in his statement the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault) left out something very important: he did not conclude his statement with a motion.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that although the Hon. Member for Drummond made a statement on a matter that is important to him, it is not a genuine question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair could comment on this problem. We have a situation where an Hon. Member is the subject of a complaint by the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault). The former Member is not here this afternoon. In the circumstances, I think the Chair could suggest that Hon. Members postpone debate on this question until tomorrow or some other day, when the other Hon. Member will be in the House. I think the Chair's suggestion should be agreeable to all Members and that it is probably the best thing to do for the time being.


André Ouellet: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. After listening carefully to the Hon. Member for Drummond, I think it would be in the best interests of all concerned if we knew exactly what the Hon. Member's complaint is about. Apparently, he says the letter that was made public is a letter he did not sign himself and that someone released or signed this letter without his permission. He has not named anyone and has not indicated at all who in his office would have released such a document without his approval. I therefore suggest he clarify the matter so that the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) can be more specific in his reply.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the comments made by the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) are very apt. He has raised an important point. Perhaps it would be a good thing if the Hon. Member for Drummond were given a chance to elaborate, just to clarify the point raised by the Hon. Member for Papineau.
The Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault).


Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member for Papineau that the document handed round yesterday by his colleague, the Hon. Member for Shefford, has no letterhead, was not signed by me and in fact was signed by no one. And I repeat that the Hon. Member showed the document to the press.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that in the circumstances, and consistent with the practice of the Chair, it would probably be better to postpone consideration of this matter until all Members concerned can be present. The question could then be pursued on some other occasion. For the time being, debate on the subject is adjourned.
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Rodriguez that the first report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure presented to the House on Tuesday, January 27, 1987, be concurred in.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate this afternoon in the motion to concur in the report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure dealing with the issue of the registration of lobbyists.
As you will undoubtedly recall, Mr. Speaker, it was on September 9, 1985 that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) tabled in this House a document concerning public sector ethics.
And you will recall that in this document, all wrapped up in a nice blue ribbon, the Prime Minister told us that it was necessary to regain, he said, the respect of Canadians for our Government institutions. If this was true on September 9, 1985, Mr. Speaker, you can imagine what the Canadian Government would have to do today-February 12, 1987-to regain the confidence of Canadians. Here is what the Prime Minister told us on September 9, 1985:
It is a great principle of public administration-I could even say an "imperative"-that to function effectively the Government and the public service of a democraty must have the trust and confidence of the public they serve. In order to reinforce that trust, the Government must be able to provide competent management and, above all, to be guided by the highest standards of conduct.
My God! Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was explaining some of the measures he wanted to take to shore up this code of public ethics. He said he wanted, first:
A new Conflict of Interest/Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders.
Then he went on to say:
Instructions to Ministers imposing specific and strict limitations on the hiring of family members.
Third, he had sent:
Letters to Opposition Leaders on the subject of ethical standards for MPs and Senators.
You see, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wanted all Members of Parliament to share the blame equally, strongly hoping he would not have to bear so much of the blame.
Fourth, he said he wanted to establish:
An experimental program of parliamentary scrutiny of Governor in Council appointments. 5. The registration of lobbying activity.

We know what happened to that one.
Hi
February 12, 1987

So he said at the time, and there were two more components in the program of the Prime Minister.

I will read to you from page 9 of the document of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of September 9. He said:
The fifth component of this comprehensive approach to public sector ethics is the undertaking of this Government to introduce into the House of Commons, at an early date-
-remember the words "early date", Mr. Speaker-
__legislation to monitor lobbying activity and to control the lobbying process by
providing a reliable and accurate source of information on the activities of lobbyists. We will require, among other things, paid lobbyists to register and identify their clients.
This will enable persons who are approached by lobbyists for Canadian corporations, associations and unions, and by agents on behalf of foreign governments and other foreign interests, to be clearly aware of who is behind the representation.
The Prime Minister continued:
I have accordingly asked my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate affairs, to prepare, on an urgent basis, legislation to govern lobbying activity.
This document is from September 9, 1985. Days and months passed. Just before Christmas, 1986, the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs stood up in the House of Commons and informed us that he would table in the House, not a Bill or any other means to control the activities of lobbyists, but the consultation or discussion paper which I have here, entitled Lobbying and the Registration of Paid Lobbyists. The document is quite extensive. It describes different alternatives for registering lobbyists, including the alternative of doing nothing at all. Of course, this was a great disappointment to a number of us who were hoping at the time that we would see early legislation. However, the positive aspect of this report is that the issue was referred to a parliamentary committee. Unfortunately, I have little use for the contents of the report itself because they were not very inspiring for our committeee. However, the issue was sent to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure in early 1986.
That committee consisted of Members from all sides of the House and I want to give credit to Members from all Parties who were on that committee, under the able chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper). We had extensive hearings in Ottawa, Washington, and Sacremento, California. We heard the opinion of Canadian lobbyists, Canadian pressure groups, ordinary Canadians, as well as Members of Parliament about the question of the registration of lobbyists. In Washington and California we interviewed lobbyists and legislators.
It became apparent from our hearings that lobbyists are seen very differently in the United States than they are in Canada. For instance, lobbyists in Canada will use every trick in the book to call themselves anything but lobbyists. They will call themselves government consultants, consultants in
Motions
government affairs, public relations personnel, and many other names. In the United States, however, people involved in that profession are very proud to call themselves lobbyists. Indeed, in Washington lobbyists will identify themselves as such, in the phone book and elsewhere.
It was interesting to note that most Canadian lobbyists were reluctant to have a registration system or any system that would impose any burden on them. The few who were in favour, with some exceptions, wanted a system of selfregistration that was administered by their profession. However, in the United States most lobbyists thought it was perfectly normal to have a system to register their activities. Indeed, they had no difficulty with the principle that they should register what they do.
Members of the committee asked lobbyists in the United States if they objected to registration. They agreed that they were conducting private transactions on behalf of private corporations, but that their job was to communicate with public officials. They felt that it was only normal in that case that they should be asked to register. Indeed, some of the lobbyists in Washington to whom we talked were actually using the registry in the United States as a form of advertising. They told us that they would use the registry to show potential clients all the customers for whom they had lobbied over the last year, and used it as a tool to show a potential client their efficiency. Needless to say, the different attitude shown by the Americans was fascinating.
Once our hearings were completed outside the country last summer, the committee came back to Parliament and proceeded to draft a preliminary report. Let me repeat that Members on all sides of the House were quite co-operative but, unfortunately, the year progressed quickly and our work was interrupted by the summer recess. Furthermore, the Prime Minister decided to end the session and start afresh-we all know how well that worked-which delayed the committee's work for another month. In November the committee received a new reference and the members of the committee went back to work.
I believe that this unanimous report represents a compromise of members who tempered their views in committee. I sought less than I wanted in the report and probably some Members opposite put a little more in the report than they really wanted.
While a unanimous report is not unique, when one considers that most of us began from very different points of views on the issue of registration of lobbyists, the fact that we managed to reconcile our differences was remarkable. I never thought that Members on the government side who sat on the same committee as the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and I could ever agree on the time of day. However, partly because of the good chairmanship by the Member for Peace River, and the co-operation of everyone, we managed to agree on much more than that. Ultimately we agreed on the very substantive report that was tabled in the House earlier this year.

February 12, 1987
Motions
Our report made several recommendations. They include the adoption and implementation of a system of registration of lobbyists. We recommended that the Government consult with members of the lobbying industry to discuss the formation of an association of lobbyists, in addition to the system of registration so that we could have both a system of discipline based on rules set out by the industry while, at the same time, having a registry that we all advocated.
We recommended that there be a definition of lobbying. It was defined as attempting to influence either directly or indirectly any governmental decision, whether it be legislative or administrative.
We recommended a definition of who should be in the category of lobbyists and who should be left out. We made several other recommendations in the report. The time is passing quickly and the report has been in the hands of the Government for almost a month. Given the compromise that all Members made-


An Hon. Member:: You are a great one to say that.


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member who unfortunately did not participate in the committee may think that the issue is very funny. However, I am not only saying that opposition Members did good work on the committee, I think Members on all sides worked well. Perhaps it was largely due to the fact that the Member in question was not there. In fact, it is probably 90 per cent of the reason why we managed to produce a unanimous report.
However, we also recommended in our report that those who lobbied as volunteers and did not charge for their services should not have to register. We did not want to interfere with anyone's freedom of speech, which is a very important distinction and a concern that was raised by members in that committee. While we wanted those who charge a fee for interfacing with public officials to disclose what they were doing, we were unanimous in our view that we did not want anyone to be precluded from contacting a public official. That is very important to us who are in public office.
I believe if those laws were made too strict, they could affect the very privileges of Members of Parliament to obtain input from the constituencies which we are charged to represent. The privileges of Hon. Members are indeed at the centre of this issue. That is why I think it concerns Hon. members on all sides of the House, and need not be dealt with in perhaps quite as partisan a manner as some other things with which we deal.
I have been known to be partisan every now and then myself. I remember well what happened to me last year, and you will probably recall as well, Mr. Speaker. However, I try not to be too partisan when dealing with this kind of issue.
The committee thought that lobbyists should be required to register their names, the names of their firms, the contact person, and their address and phone number. We felt lobbyists
should register the name of their client and the client's place of business. The lobbying activities which are taking place should also be registered.
Some of us would like to have gone one step further, and I am one of them, and registered the fee a lobbyist receives for an activity as well as his disbursements. In other words, a person could go to the register and see that one particular lobbyist was lobbying the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) trying to get a concession for such and such an industry, that the lobbyist was paid $10,000 to do this and that he spent half of that wining and dining people. The importance of that is that there would then be a greater level of transparency.
I am not saying that Members of Parliament or cabinet Ministers have no right to meet anyone for dinner. What I am saying is we would create an atmosphere whereby the public would have a right to see who did what to whom, for whom, by whom, and at what cost. That is an important element.
In the State of California, for instance, the legislation governing lobbyists there prevents a lobbyist from entertaining an individual Member of the Legislative Assembly at a cost greater than, I believe, $10 in any calendar month. I think that is just getting a bit carried away. I can imagine a lobbyist taking a Congressman to lunch at a cost of $12.50 and asking the Congressman to give him $2.50 because he is not supposed to spend any more than $10.1 think that would be onerous and we do not want the system to be that way.
I think we want the system designed in such a way as to have it simple and acceptable, not only to people in the lobbying business but to Members of Parliament, to people in Government. The system should be easy to work with and one which will not be expensive to operate. The last thing we need is to set up a bureaucracy of a large number of people in order to administer the rules. Having said that, I think the system would be better if we could register the fees.
In closing, I must say that as a compromise our parliamentary committee inserted a provision in our report that in two years time the same parliamentary committee should perform an evaluation of the registry of lobbyists. At that time the committee, while reviewing the registry, could decide to add certain criteria. It is my sincere hope that two years from now, or two years from the passing of the legislation, the parliamentary committee will want to add the fees of the lobbyists in the registry. I think that would make it far more meaningful.
I want to conclude by again congratulating all Hon. Members who participated in the committee from all sides of the House, representing all political Parties, under the chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Peace River, who did a great job of chairing the committee. The challenge is now up to the Government to prepare the legislation and to send it back to our committee so that we can go ahead and do the job.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate on this particular subject which is so important to the health of this institution. I want to join previous speakers in paying tribute to
February 12, 1987

the chairman of the committee, the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper), who did a very excellent piece of work in bringing about unanimity and consensus in the committee report on lobbying. I know it was not easy. Probably all members of the committee had to make some concessions in order to promote that kind of unanimity.
Having said that, I think it is time to recall the beginnings of this aspect of parliamentary reform, which actually began in the first Speech from the Throne. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), as his first order of business, enunciated the need for wide and sweeping changes to the practices within Parliament. He said there should be parliamentary reform and this is one of the reports which has issued from that particular statement of the Prime Minister. I, for one, want to put on the record that our Prime Minister has taken the initiative to begin changing the course of procedure in this Parliament to ensure that it becomes open to the people of Canada, so that all Members of Parliament, particularly the back-benchers, can do the work they were elected to do.
I listened with care to the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) when he spoke this morning. He made two points that were important to him and I think probably to all of us. His first point was that when the Prime Minister made the statement a year or two ago, what he did was ask a committee to do the work.


Don Boudria: No.


Benno Friesen: With respect, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) was not here and I am quoting the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. He said this morning in debate that the Prime Minister had asked a committee to study the matter of the registry of lobbyists and now, 16 months later, we have the report. It was a complaint on the part of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap that the Prime Minister did that. I would simply point out that if the Prime Minister had gone ahead on his own initiative and had the PMO do something and then referred it to the House, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap would have complained that the Prime Minister had bypassed Parliament, and that would have been a legitimate complaint. The Hon. Member cannot have it both ways.
In making his second point, the Hon. Member read a list of lurid headlines from the newspapers and said it is time to clean up the act. I would not ask the Hon. Member, as a member of the Opposition, not to criticize the Government. That is his role and that is what provides for good government. However, if the Hon. Member wants the atmosphere of the House to improve, the first thing he can do as House leader of one of the opposition Parties, is give credit where credit is due; for once give total credit to the Prime Minister for having initiated the kinds of reforms which make it possible for the House to do its work.
I was glad the Minister in charge of this legislation was here this morning because he has given his undertaking that there will be legislation as soon as possible to bring about a registry
Motions
of lobbyists, which is long overdue. Having read the report, I would simply say that while I concur with pretty well everything in it, I myself think it has not really gone far enough.
The first assumption the report makes is that lobbyists, the ones who need to be watched most carefully, are those who are lobbying for some kind of financial or commercial venture. It assumes that most of the lobbying has a financial profit motive involved. To some degree, that is true. I do not think anyone would disagree with that, and it is probably of paramount importance that those lobbyists who are lobbying on behalf of commercial interests be the first to register. I think no one would deny that. However, it is an inadequate assumption that all of the lobbying of consequence has financial motive. There are other motives across the land today which encourage the lobbying of Members of Parliament. Some of these motives are ideological and do not involve money at all.
The report of the committee calls for the registry of those lobbyists who are paid lobbyists. I think all of us understand and accept that. The report goes on to state that there are other groups, single-interest groups, which should be required to register when they retain a paid lobbyist to represent their views to the Government. Those are really the only absolute restrictions the report would place upon lobbyists. To me, that is somewhat restricted. The net is too small in that area because, as I have said, there are groups lobbying members of the Government and members of the Opposition whose motive is not financial gain but ideological. That is fair and right. It is probably the way it should be. However, under the recommendation put forward by the committee they would go unnoticed. It is time to take a look at some of these groups and the lobbying efforts which they carry on.
For example, let us consider a group whose raison d'etre is to lobby. That is its full-time operation. It may not send representatives to Ottawa, but it goes about changing public opinion. For better or worse, let us consider the animal rights groups or groups which lobby on the issue of acid rain. The people in these groups have as their raison d'etre the changing of public opinion. In effect, they lobby the Government for a change in policy or administration. Is it not time that groups such as this whose raison d'etre is to lobby be called upon to register all of their operations?
I am reminded of a group such as the Fraser Valley Peace Movement. I hear reports about this group once in a while, and I do not know if they are true, that some of the group's funding comes from the World Peace Council. I do not know whether that is true, but if it is going to lobby me as a Member of Parliament, or if it is going to lobby members of the Opposition, perhaps it is time for it to declare from where its financial resources come and if, in fact, it does receive money from the World Peace Council. If it receives money from the World Peace Council perhaps it is time for the rest of us to know about it so that we know from where the influence is coming.

February 12, 1987
Motions
What about the ad hoc groups, "the committee to-" and I leave Hon. Members to fill in the blanks, whatever the committee happens to be? Their intention is to change public opinion. That is good. We all need that privilege. We want to protect and enshrine the right to change public opinion.
But there is a sense that the registration of lobbyists is indirectly at least an intention to register motives. What we see from a consideration of this report is that the motives are mostly financial. I am saying that that is not necessarily always the case. Where the motives are financial and taxpayers' money can be misused it is important that those lobbyists be registered. By the same token, and I think some of my friends would agree, there are some things in this life that are more important than money. In a world of ideas and conflicting ideas that issue becomes very important. If we are to exist in a world of conflict here in the House of Commons then we have to know what are the underlying premises. I am suggesting that it would be good for the lobby groups which come to us to register their backgrounds.
There is also another factor involved. It is what I would call either the cross-fertilization of groups or interlocking directorates. We live in an era in which lobby groups spawn. They multiply like rabbits. There is a new group forming every day, depending on the issue of the day. On closer examination one will find that where one parent group contains a board of directors, a board of management or an executive board, one, two or three of those board members will go off and form other groups that have allied goals but different titles. This multiplies the number of organizations, and they all purport to be different organizations. But if one looks at the organizational charts of each of these groups one will find that they are, in effect, one organization.
There is nothing wrong with that except that it creates an illusion. It creates the illusion that there is a growing mass of public concern about an issue, whereas, in reality, the possibli-ty is that they are the same people multiplying the numbers of organizations. This creates the illusion that more and more organizations which are concerned about a particular issue are being formed. Yet we find on closer examination that they are actually all the same people.
Therefore, if we are to register lobbyists we need to get our mentality beyond financial concerns and look at some of the non-commercial, non-financial concerns that are just as important for the future of our country and the health of our nation. Perhaps it is important for all of those groups which lobby to declare what is their financial base. We have groups which are often funded by the federal Government which are into the whole world of advocacy. They are advocates for particular issues. If one looks at these organizations it is easy to see that they are frequently funded by the federal Government. Should it not be part of the requirement of these lobbyists to declare from where they receive their money and that in fact the federal Government is funding their operations?
There is one final question to which I must confess I have no answer. However, I think it is a growing concern for Members of Parliament. I refer to the lobbying which goes on by mail, not by individual constituents. I think it is right and proper, but more and more often we have briefs sent to us by organizations which never appear before us. I do not know how to handle the situation.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Shut down the Post Office. That will fix it.


Benno Friesen: Yes, that is right. The fact is that these people are lobbying. We want them to do that. It is their privilege and their right. In many cases it is their responsibility to do so. Once we begin the process of registration of lobbyists then the issue begins to multiply. In effect, it tends to become confused.
The final point I wish to mention is with respect to the matter of compliance. I notice that the committee dealt with this issue on page 5 of its report. Where any deficiencies or irregularities are demonstrated it states that the Government should have the power to enforce compliance with the requirements of the register. I do not know how one would go about enforcing compliance. Sometimes these campaigns are singleissue campaigns. The issue arises, an ad hoc committee is formed to deal with it, and before we know it the lobbying is done and the group has dispersed.
The Minister who was in the House this morning indicated that the Government is actively pursuing the recommendations of the committee. I wish to compliment the members of the committee on their work. I urge the Minister to bring forward legislation as soon as possible so that we can have full disclosure as far as possible in terms of lobbyists who appear before us.


Nelson Andrew Riis: In his parting comments, my hon. friend indicated that he hoped the Government would take early action on this. We have waited for decades for this piece of legislation that is still only at the study stage. As a member of the Government, would the Member indicate what he might do to ensure that the Government does introduce legislation quickly regarding this critical matter?


Benno Friesen: The Hon. Member is correct. We have waited for decades, and I wish we had not had to wait. As a matter of fact, my former colleague, the late Walter Baker, was very concerned about this particular issue. He worked on it considerably when he was a Member of the House. I would gladly sit with the Minister's group on the committee and work on the matter of this legislation. I take the Minister's word for it that it will be coming. I imagine that the legislation will be drafted before the summer break.


Don Boudria: I have a comment, Mr. Speaker. I listened to the remarks of the Hon. Member. I am sorry to say that his understanding of what we are trying to do in the report that we suggested is totally different from what we proposed to do. We have not expressed ourselves in a manner which is unclear.
February 12, 1987

Quite obviously we are concerned with the issue of the registration of paid lobbyists. There are several reasons that we are only registering paid lobbyists. I ask the Hon. Member to pay attention to this.
First, on September 9, 1985, the Prime Minister stated in the House: "We will require, among other things, paid lobbyists to register-" That is a quote from the Prime Minister's speech. What the Prime Minister asks us to do is to register paid lobbyists. The Member is asking why do we not register people who are not paid, and all those other things. It is mainly because that is not what his own Prime Minister wanted. That is the first point.
Second, in my view it is improper to ask people who are not paid and who, as volunteers, are seeking to reach public officials, to register or to divulge their source of funding. It interferes with freedom of association. We also have to concern ourselves with that. Our committee listened to those deliberations on both sides of the issue. It is not one Party in this House that had a weird and eccentric view of how those things should be done versus another. It was unanimous in all its respects that we cannot place burdens upon people who are not paid, or interferences in any way, shape, or form for them interfacing with their Members of Parliament or their Government because of freedom of association, and because of the privilege of Members of this House for which all of us collectively on that committee have great respect.
Those are some of the reasons why the proposal was made in that manner. I suggest to the Member that he confer with some of his colleagues from his Party who are sitting on the committee. It is quite obvious to me that it will be very difficult to register lobbyists who are not paid. We have no business asking people how they receive their funding, if it has nothing to do with the purpose of lobbying public officials. If an organization is advocating peace by buying advertisements in the newspaper, surely they cannot be asked where they receive their money. That interferes with their freedom of doing things. In terms of charitable contributions, the provincial government has something to do with the receipts, as does the Revenue Department, but not in terms of us identifying who pays for it before they can associate. That is not right. The Member should reflect upon that, and he will see that that is not a correct way of looking at things. There are enormous repercussions which he should think about seriously, and which I ask him to do in consultation with his colleagues.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie).


Benno Friesen: Sorry, Bill, I have to go to committee, otherwise I would gladly listen to your speech.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I was going to have something to say about the speech of the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). The argument that he was making is one that I worry about as a possible extension of the argument that the committee made.
Motions
It is no secret to those who have paid attention to this issue, that one of the reasons I have expressed reservations on the whole question of registering lobbyists is that it may lead to the very type of world view espoused by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta. If those recommendations were to be adopted, I would call it a total victory of liberalism. I wonder if the Hon. Member has given any thought to that.


Benno Friesen: Please expand on that.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I think I have his attention.


Benno Friesen: Forget the committee.


John R. Rodriguez: You did not have to hit him between the eyes to do it.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: If the Hon. Member's views were to be implemented, one of the results would be that the very world of ideas which he talked about-he was correct when he said it was so important to the political process-that very important world of ideas by virtue of the suggestions he made would be reduced to a world of interest. That is to say, to a perfect model of the Hobbesian liberal view of what politics is about. In the final analysis it is not a question of different ideas competing for the public mind and the collective imagination, it is a question of brokerage politics, of the Government playing one interest against the other, and making decisions as to what trade-offs have to be made. In other words, precisely the kind of liberal politics, in the small "1" sense-although the Liberal Party has certainly embodied this type of politics for many years in Canada-that I would have thought the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta would have been critical of.
I find it somewhat surprising that he rose to his feet to suggest that this liberal notion of registering lobbyists be extended presumably to include church groups, and ecumenical coalitions that gather together around certain concerns. I find it surprising that the Member would take the view that these should be treated in the same way conceptually as a paid lobbyist for an oil corporation coming to Ottawa to advocate a certain tax benefit for his or her corporation, or that that should somehow be at the same level as the work of Project North or other groups concerned with those issues which have no immediate or long-term financial self-interest in the measures that they may be asking the Government to implement. In fact, sometimes the case may be that the measures that they are asking the Government to implement impact negatively on their own well-being.
For instance, if non-native southern Canadians come forward and advocate that the Government settle land claims, and the Government return to the native people the lands which in their judgment have been unjustly taken from them, this certainly could not be considered to be in the self-interest of non-native southern Canadians who may have everything to gain in the traditional sense of financial self-interest from the

February 12, 1987
Motions
exploitation of those lands, as opposed to turning them over to the self-government of the native people involved. It is a serious philosophical error to lump that type of activity together with the activity of paid lobbyists for multinational corporations, or whatever the case may be. The committee was wise in its unanimous judgment that that not be done.
I know the Hon. Member has to run over to committee, but now he is debating whether to stick around for the question and comment period.


Benno Friesen: You got it.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It will be interesting to see what he does.
To be talking about lobbying today is timely. Lobbying has everything to do with the question of morality and ethics in the public sector.


Mr. Towers:: There are not too many listening over there.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is too bad. I know I have the ear of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight). He was probably interested in what I had to say about land claims.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I want an answer on that.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: There has been a lot of attention paid in recent weeks to the question of political morality as it pertains to the issues which have come before this House. In bringing this up I am not trying to address any particular issue. It is a simple matter of fact that we have had questions before us which pertain to how contracts are awarded, the degree of political influence involved, either at a partisan political level or whatever, in the awarding of contracts, and many other allegations, founded and unfounded, about improprieties on the part of government Members. As we know the allegations have reached as high as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Therefore it is timely for us to have a debate about how the political process works. Certainly lobbying is one of the main elements in that process. This gives us an opportunity, within the bounds of relevance, to reflect on political morality in general.
Personally I feel that one of the problems with the notion of registering lobbyists is that lobbying has a kind of negative connotation. One reason for that, in my judgment, is that it is associated with American politics and the American model of how the political process works. That is not to say that the committee has not come up with what we hope will be a uniquely Canadian understanding of lobbying. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that lobbying, professional lobbyists, and registration of lobbyists are all associated with the American system. I think there is a danger that this, along with a number of other trends which I may or may not have time to go into, could become part and parcel if we are not wary, that is to say, if we do not adopt the views of the Hon. Member for Surrey-
White Rock-North Delta, of what I would call the Americanization of Canadian politics.
There are some things we can learn from the American system. I am not completely closed-minded on that. I was part of the committee on the reform of the House of Commons which wanted to invest our committees with more independence. Not independence identical to congressional committees, because that would be impossible as long as we want to maintain a parliamentary system, and I believe we do. Nevertheless, there are things which can be learned. What I am saying is that I perceive on a number of fronts what I would call the Americanization of Canadian politics. I think the Government we have today is a good example of that. Some of the government Members might find that irritating, especially those who consider themselves part of the old Tory tradition which sees Canada as having a unique political tradition apart from the U.S.A. Yet there is this political irony in the air today that the Conservative Party, more than any other Party, has become the leading edge of the Americanization of Canadian politics.


Pat Carney: What ridiculous nonsense that is.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) has taken the Americanization of Canadian politics to the nth degree. She should be saying the least. She not only believes in the Americanization of Canadian politics, she believes in selling out the whole country.


Pat Carney: Irresponsible statement.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: To even talk about Canadian politics in the presence of the Minister is a mistake. We should be talking about how we can become fully integrated into the American political system.


Pat Carney: You can talk about that, we will not.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We might even be able to defend ourselves better as the 51st state than we would having the Hon. Minister go to bat for us.


Benno Friesen: Where does Manitoba borrow its money?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: When I heard a petition had been filed concerning steel exports to the U.S. I had the same thought that I had when I heard about the potash petition. For Heaven's sake, do not send the Minister for International Trade whatever you do, Mr. Prime Minister. In fact we thought of having an emergency motion-


Pat Carney: Tell it to your constituents.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -where perhaps the whole House could unite together in a common anxiety, that however the Government responded to the most recent protectionist actions south of the 49th parallel-


Pat Carney: Tell it to the IWA.
February 12, 1987


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -it should not send the Minister for International Trade. She thinks she has a record as a negotiator.


Pat Carney: Your provincial NDP thinks so.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: She can come to an agreement with almost anyone if she is willing to give them exactly what they want.


John R. Rodriguez: She is a patsy.


Pat Carney: Confusion in the NDP ranks.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: If you are willing to say on the one hand that this is our final offer, but on the other hand if you do not like it a couple of weeks down the road we will make another offer.


Benno Friesen: Tell that to Jack Munro.


Pat Carney: Tell it to the steel unions.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I did not mean to be diverted like that by the heckling of the Hon. Minister. However, it gave me a chance to say a few things I have been wanting to say for a while, so I am not all that unhappy about it.


Mr. Thacker:: You voted for the Charter.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) has a question?


Blaine Allen Thacker: You voted for the Charter and that is what made us more like the-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Hon. Member says the Charter has contributed to the Americanization of politics? It definitely has that potential. Even though in the final analysis I voted for the Charter, and one reason I did was that it had a notwithstanding clause. If he checks what I had to say in my first and last speech on the Constitution he will see that the points I am making today I made then. Check the record. I expressed an anxiety at that time about what the Charter could mean-


Thomas Gordon Towers: Why did you vote for it, then?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -with respect to preserving our parliamentary traditions. One of the reasons I was able to vote for it at the time was that it included a notwithstanding clause. That is not the view taken by some of my colleagues. Some people thought the notwithstanding clause was a serious degradation of the Charter. That is not the view I took.
Getting back to the Americanization of Canadian politics-


Pat Carney: Unbelievable.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -by the Progressive Conservative Party, what I wanted to say before I was so happily distracted by the Minister, is that the Conservative Party has adopted the American view of politics that to the victor goes the spoils, and done so with a passion. That is not to say there was not political patronage before the Conservative Party came along.
Motions


Mr. Merrithew:: Hardly.


Pat Carney: Think of the NDP Government in B.C.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: God knows we have had political patronage before. However, the Conservatives have made a virtue of what some might argue has at least been regarded as a kind of necessary evil in the political system.


Pat Carney: Be careful.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Canadians should have been listening a little more carefully to the Prime Minister. Had they listened to what he said before he was elected as Prime Minister they would have heard him say that he was going to reward Conservatives. Their 20 years in the wilderness was going to be overcome by all kinds of rewards and awards and contracts and what not. He would not appoint anyone else until there were no Conservatives left to appoint. These things the Prime Minister said should have been signals to the Canadian public. Perhaps they were. I do not think there was ever a great deal of trust but people were so rightly desperate to get rid of the Liberals that they blinded themselves to the kinds of signals the Prime Minister was sending out about what kind of Prime Minister he would be and what kind of Government we would get.
But this Government has taken that American philosophy of "to the victor goes the spoils" one more step. The Tories said the spoils not only belong to the political Party that happens to get elected but they belong to the personal network of the Prime Minister. That is why Canadians rightly feel, even though we all know that patronage is nothing new, that something new is happening, that some ill-defined line-and I agree it is ill-defined-has been stepped over by the Government. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that there was this urgency in the committee and elsewhere in the House of Commons to try to do something about questions of political morality. Maybe that is why there was the possibility of unanimity within the committee that looked at the question of registration of lobbyists. I do not know, but I do think that it is widely felt both in this House by those who can admit it and by those who cannot that something new, and I would suggest terrible, is happening to our political system when day after day we have to deal with the kinds of things that we have been dealing with for so long now.
I am not concerned personally in the sense that when one enters political life one has to assume that all the traditional cynicism about politics and politicians will be directed at a person as an individual. That is something we all choose to live with when we choose to run. What I am concerned about is that the whole political agenda in Canada is being dragged down. There are things that need to be debated and which need to be paid attention to, things which are very important and which simply cannot get as high on the political agenda as they need to be as long as we are pre-occupied with questions

February 12, 1987
Motions
that come as a result of what people in the Government have done. As an Opposition we cannot very well decide to let the Government off the hook. It might only encourage its Members to do other things that are improper. On the other hand, I think that all of us would agree that, because we have to concentrate on these things, it is a disservice to the political process and to things that do need to be addressed.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that I have not addressed the details of the recommendations of the committee on lobbying and I apologize for that, but only to a certain degree, because sometimes things have to be put in larger perspective, and sometimes the heckling of Members like the Minister for International Trade have to be answered. For that, I hope you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I enjoyed the speech of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). Somewhere in it there were a few remarks about the subject, but his speech was more about international trade than it was about the registration of lobbyists. I guess it is normal and understandable that somebody who deals from a socialist perspective would be much more concerned about the registration of lobbyists who deal with commerce since profit is such a dirty word for the socialists.


John R. Rodriguez: Nonsense.


Benno Friesen: Hear me out. The Hon. Member over there has been so calm up to now. Please do not get excited now.


John R. Rodriguez: Don't make ridiculous statements.


Benno Friesen: I do not know why New Democrats would be so concerned about other lobbyists. It seems to be that what we are talking about is the registration of a pedigree of lobbyists. What are their credentials and backgrounds? We are not talking about their right to lobby. It is not about the free flow of information. I do not understand why the Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill would be implying that any suggestion to register lobbyists who work in a non-commercial area would be an infringement on the flow of ideas or the threatening of a flow of ideas just because you ask people to declare their pedigrees. Let me give an example.
About 40 years ago there was a famous set of hearings heard along the Mackenzie Valley about the pipeline. The Member talked about southerners going up north. In those hearings the Member may recall that one of the people sent up north was a very prominent Member of the NDP working on behalf of the CBC.


An Hon. Member:: Give us his name.


Benno Friesen: What was his name?


An Hon. Member:: He doesn't know.


Benno Friesen: He does not know. He lobbied for a year or more organizing native groups along a certain perspective, a particular point of view, and here you had spontaneous native
organizations coming to the Berger hearings. They all said somewhat the same thing. Mr. Berger, the learned judge, conducting those hearings had a learned counsel who was part of his legal staff, who happens how to be the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Is it any wonder that the outcome of the Berger hearings produced a report that was so parallel to the views of the New Democratic Party at the time? Is that a strange coincidence?
Maybe it would have been helpful at the time when dealing with a non-commercial venture, because we were dealing not only with a pipeline but with the future of the north as the Member said, for all those involved in developing the thought forms and the positions of the people up north-that the people doing that should have registered their pedigree and background.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta makes a very strange argument. First, with respect to the Berger Commission, these were public hearings. These were people who presented their views in public, whereas in general when we are talking about lobbying we are talking about that which is done in private. That major distinction was not made. It was no secret. Maybe the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta just found out, but everybody knew at the time that Tom Berger was a former leader of the New Democratic Party.
I find it interesting that when judges in Canada, most of whom at one time or other were either Liberal or Conservative, make a report, and people criticize it, you hear that it was an independent judicial judgment on the matter at hand, and people say they do not know why Members of the New Democratic Party would want to question the integrity of the judge who made such an austere and wise ruling. When former Liberal and Conservative judges make rulings, we are supposed to regard them with due respect, but when a judge who has a New Democratic Party history makes recommendations which have an affinity for what the New Democratic Party might have recommended, this somehow is political in the worst sense of the word. I think there is an obvious double standard. The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta believes in that Liberal-Conservative world of his. From his point of view, Liberal-Conservative things are value neutral and are just a fact of life. It is only things outside that world view which are seen to be political.
I have news for the Hon. Member. His views are political. The views of judges who have Liberal and Conservative political histories are political. They are every bit as informed or not informed, as the case may be, depending upon the objectivity of the judge in question, by their political histories, as are judges with NDP histories. I find the Hon. Member's argument to be a good example of the double standard applied to members of the judiciary who have NDP backgrounds. These members are called to account for the things they say that may have political intonations as Mr. Berger was when he
February 12, 1987

made a remark about land claims. Other judges get away with saying all kinds of things and their remarks are not regarded with the same severity.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member quite attentively. I wonder how he would categorize the position of Mr. Adam Zimmerman who lobbied very, very strenuously recently on the softwood lumber question while at the same time, as I understand it, he was the Chairman of the Executive Committee of Southam News. Does the Hon. Member see any conflict of interest there?
While he is answering that question, I wonder if he would tell me how he would categorize Mr. Jack Munro, a head of a union, because no doubt he is being paid by his union to lobby.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the recommendations of the committee, if Mr. Munro was actively lobbying in Parliament about a particular matter he would have to so register. With respect to Mr. Zimmerman and his connections with Southam News, I did not make any claims about who was a lobbyist and who was not in the softwood lumber deal. My claims were about the nature of the activities of the Minister for International Trade. I hoped that what was evidenced there would not be evidenced down the road with respect to other questions of Canada-U.S. trade.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Hon. Member to comment further on the softwood issue. As the Hon. Member will know, the critic for the NDP in the Province of British Columbia supports the negotiated settlement as being the best possible deal under the circumstances. Is the Hon. Member criticizing or disagreeing with a provincial branch of his own Party?
Further, I would ask the Hon. Member to comment on the fact that the leader of the IWA, even today as reported by The Globe and Mail, insists that the negotiated settlement was the best deal, that it maintained our sovereignty, that it kept funds in Canada and that it will have minimal impact on employment. The Hon. Member is out of step with both the union involved and the provincial NDP. Why is the federal Party against its provincial branch and the IWA?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is not convinced that the First part of the question was relevant. However, I recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie).


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Tories cannot have it both ways. Sometimes when we ask questions in the House the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and others-


Pat Carney: Answer the question.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I will answer the question. Sometimes the Secretary of State is wont to say: "Taking your orders from the CLC again, eh, Ed?" This is the heckling that we have to take from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. That is the wit and wisdom of former Conservative Party leaders.
Motions
Then when we take a view that is different from that of the trade union movement we are chastised by the Minister for International Trade. The Tories pretend that we do not have a view independent from that of the trade union movement, and then when we demonstrate an independent view they chastise us.
As to the position of the British Columbia NDP, this is a free country. If the members of that Party want to take the view they have taken, that is Fine, but we take a different view. We do not take our marching orders from our provincial wings any more than the Prime Minister does. Tories should talk about conflict with provincial wings. What could be more ridden with conflict than the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta and the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Newfoundland, just to cite two examples? It does not sit well for the Minister for International Trade to chastise the federal NDP for having an independent view on the softwood lumber agreement. If the B.C. NDP has a different view, that is its right. It is a democratic Party.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine)-Labour relations- Request for explanation concerning certain deductions made at source; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Revenue Canada, (a) Word processing work, (b) Department's security measures.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Rodriguez that the First report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure presented to the House on Tuesday, January 27, 1987, be concurred in.
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to clear the record. I noticed that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) spent a good deal of time defending the legitimacy of a judge who is a member of the New Democratic Party as opposed to a Liberal or a Conservative, and that is fine. I just want to remind the House that I was not referring to Mr. Berger at all in my comments. I was referring

February 12, 1987
Motions
to the fact that others paid by the federal Government through its agencies to lobby for a particular position affected the outcome of the hearings. I was not casting any aspersions on Mr. Berger. I never mentioned him except to say that he was the judge who conducted the hearings in question. The outcome of those hearings came about as a result of the lobbying that was done by people paid by the federal Government.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same questionable point of order. The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock- North Delta implied that there was a direct relationship between the lobbying done by this person he has refused to name and the outcome of the hearing, implying that Judge Berger did not render an independent judgment of his own on the matters before him. I think that is a serious charge.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: How about resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Scarborough East (Mr. Hicks)?


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to address this particular motion very briefly. I will take a look at it in a way completely different from that of previous speakers. I must say I have enjoyed today's speeches. At times debate was humorous, at times it was sensible, at times it was intelligent and on many occasions it was completely irrelevant. All in all, it was very enjoyable.
I do not think anyone has yet addressed an over-view of what has been presented today, or the fact that it is this Government that is showing very clearly its policy and philosophy direction by presenting this type of legislation to the House. The next thing I would ask myself is why this legislation was not presented to the House before the Thirty-third Parliament. I think that speaks also to the direction, philosophy and policy of this Government.
We should applaud with great sincerity the work of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. A brief reference was made to the Chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) this morning. I believe that a unanimous report came out of that committee and that is very commendable. It is obvious that the committee worked very hard and that, regardless of what they are saying today in debate, all its members want the same thing.
Special reference was made to the committee's mandate, but I would like to interject here by making clear for the record that the committee's mandate did not result in any way from knowledge of impropriety or illegal conduct in the lobbying industry in Canada. I think it is necessary for us to put that on the record in defence of so many of Canada's companies. In fact, during the course of its hearings the committee did not receive any concrete evidence to that effect. It was found that interest groups or lobbyists often play a very helpful role in the dissemination of information on matters of public policy.
Some very excellent guidelines for registration have already been recommended by the committee. This will certainly not be the final word, but it is an excellent framework. It is an excellent base upon which all of us together can build to put the proper legislation into place. Some of the complexities will be evident in the implementation, but I am pleased to analyse what the standing committee has done. I am pleased that it did not attempt to reinvent the wheel. It analyzed, in fair depth, what has happened in other countries.
In the United States, for example, there is legislation of the lobbying profession under the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act which was enacted in 1946. With regard to the United States it is interesting to note that American efforts to regulate lobbying go back over 130 years when the House of Representatives passed a resolution requiring all lobbyists to register with the Clerk of the House. I am sure many Members of this House do not remember that. It is interesting as well to note that 42 of the 50 states of the United States have lobbying legislation, a great deal of it more stringent than that required at the federal level. The other eight states have rules in place which affect lobbying activity. Some of these states require monthly reports on lobbying activities while others require quarterly information publication. That is how the United States has dealt with this problem over the years.
The situation in West Germany is very interesting as well. In the Federal Republic of Germany the German Parliament, called the Bundestag or the Lower House, determined a need for a lobbyist register in 1981 and the Bundestag's Standing Orders list lobbyist registration requirements as an appendix.
The British Parliament, the mother of parliamentary systems, first examined the possibility of the registration of lobbyists in 1969 and concluded that it was impossible to find a satisfactory basis for a code of conduct since none such existed in the field of public relations generally.
The United Kingdom has two lobbyist associations, the Public Relations Consultants' Association and the Institute of Public Relations. Both groups have adopted their own code of conduct and have the power to expel members who violate it. It is interesting to note that the committee, under the chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Peace River, recommended that a self-regulating association be formed in Canada.
The Government in Australia implemented lobby registration rules by cabinet decision on a 12-month trial basis on March 30, 1984.
Some Members have alluded to what has taken place in other areas. It is extremely interesting and worthwhile for us to consider carefully that which has happened in other countries and the research which was done by the Hon. Members on this committee. Once again I would like to congratulate the members of the committee. I urge all Members of this House to support a Bill in this regard, not only by voting for it when the time comes but by giving carefully considered, ongoing,

February 12, 1987
genuine and practical support for what I know all Members will agree is a very good piece of legislation.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very useful that we are currently discussing the report of the committee with regard to lobbying. I have not had the opportunity to study the report in depth. I have just been looking over the recommendations. I would like to put a few comments on the record, really more by way of questions which I hope can be answered as we continue to study this very important issue.
I note that the committee recommends "the adoption and implementation of a system of registration of paid lobbyists".
It goes on to provide a definition of lobbying which is very broad. It reads in part:
We recommend that lobbying be defined as attempting to influence either directly or indirectly any governmental decision whether it be legislative or administrative.
The report goes on to say:
We recommend that the act of lobbying government be specifically defined as to include:
(a)	attempting to influence the making or amending of legislation or regulations;
(b)	attempting to influence the making or changing of federal policies or programs;
(c)	attempting to influence federal decisions on the awarding of grants, contracts, contributions or any similar benefit;
The committee, apparently having studied the system of dealing with lobbying at the federal level in the United States, recommends that not only approaches to the executive but also approaches to Members of Parliament be considered to be activities within the definition of lobbying. The committee goes on to recommend:
-that for the purpose of registration, lobbyist be defined generally to be anyone who for compensation engages in lobbying activities directed at the executive, bureaucracy. Members of the House of Commons, the Senate and their staff.
The report goes on to say:
More specifically it includes:
(a)	those who for compensation represent third party interests directly or indirectly to government-
(b)	employees or officers of non-governmental business organizations, nonprofit organizations, volunteer groups, single interest volunteer groups and foreign nationals-
Finally, and this is the aspect about which I particularly want to raise some questions, the recommendation says that for the purpose of registration, "lobbyists" should be defined to include:
lawyers, accountants and other professionals when they represent clients in dealings with government primarily for the purpose of lobbying as defined in this Report.
All of us in this House have been approached from time to time by lawyers or accountants who express a point of view about legislation or an administrative decision on behalf of a particular client. As well, lawyers, accountants and other professionals will very often approach officials or Ministers, personally or in writing, to make a representation on behalf of
Motions
a specific client with respect to government policy, legislation or, perhaps most often, to attempt to get a decision favourable to their client when the matter to be decided is within the administrative authority of the government Department or Minister pursuant to specific legislation.
Does the committee intend that each time a lawyer or an accountant writes to a Member of Parliament on behalf of a client to express a view about a specific piece of legislation or an administrative policy that lawyer has to register and disclose the information recommended by the committee report that registered lobbyists be required to disclose? In that regard the report states:
We recommend that registered lobbyists be required to disclose:
(a)	their names; firm name, if applicable, and a contact person; addresses and telephone numbers;
(b)	names of clients and their place of business;
(c)	the issue or matter upon which the lobbying activity is to take place;
Does the committee intend that each time a lawyer or an accountant makes a representation on behalf of a client, say to the Department of National Revenue, with respect to tariff classification, that lawyer or accountant must come within the ambit of the system of registration and disclosure proposed by the committee? If this is what the committee intends, then literally thousands of people will have to register and disclose the information required. Must they do that just once, the first time they make such a representation? Must they do it each time they make a representation for an individual client? The report does not go into this.
Those who prepared the report will say that I have ignored the fact that the recommendation says that lawyers, accountants and other professionals have to register only when they represent clients in dealings with government primarily for the purpose of lobbying as defined in this report. Does "primarily" mean that the main line of work of a lawyer or accountant is to represent clients in making representations, to government or Members, or does it mean that if a lawyer or accountant works almost exclusively for a particular client in making representations, they have to register, but not if they represent a range of clients? Does it mean that if a particular retainer is for the purpose of making a representation they have to register, even though the other work they do for a client does not involve making representations to government?
I suggest that in acting on this report, which is very useful and calls for action on a matter which concerns all of us in the House and increasingly in the country, the committee might well be asked to study the matter further. If we do not want to delay acting on this problem of lobbying, then in making proposals to implement this report the Government and all Parties will have to look at this very seriously.
It is quite easy to see how the recommendations of this report would apply to a major industry association representing a particular industry sector. It is fairly easy to see how the recommendations in this report would apply to a firm of

February 12, 1987
Non-Smokers' Health Act
consultants who are based in Ottawa and it is well understood that they would represent a number of clients on a number of different issues in making representations to government. It may well be that there are people who are qualified and hold themselves out as lawyers but are based in Ottawa and work solely or mainly in making representations to government and Members of Parliament about government policy or administrative decisions. I suggest it is fairly easy to see how and why the report of this committee can and should be applied when one looks at the whole government relations area as it is based in Ottawa, the nation's capital.
However, what does the committee intend with respect to lawyers and accountants in thousands of communities across the country who periodically may be called upon by a client, as part of their work, to write a letter to a department expressing a point of view on a Bill or to write a letter to a department making a representation for a certain type of administrative ruling? Are they subjecting themselves to the obligation of registration, and a sanction if they do not? Do their clients then have to have the information disclosed which is called for by the report of this committee?
I stated that I did not have the opportunity to study the report in detail, and have only looked at the recommendations earlier this afternoon. I am concerned that, while I share what I think is a common view in the House, more should be done to have a formal system of registration of lobbyists, and disclosure of their activities and the identity of those for whom they act. Not enough thought has been given to the application of the recommendations in this report to people who are accountants or lawyers, life underwriters, or those in a number of different occupations scattered all around the country.
Is it the intention of the committee that those people whom I have mentioned, scattered all across the country in communities large and small, will have to register and disclose the information mentioned in the committee report? Will there be a situation in which very large companies that have the funds to hire permanent staff who will do nothing but carry on government relations work will not have to register these people or disclose any of the information set out in the report?
If so, large private firms which may well be in a position to have an impact that we should know about on government policy or administrative decisions will not be touched by this lobbying registration and disclosure proposal, but a small local business with a handful of employees, which does not have the staff or competency to make representation but must go to its lawyer or accountant, will then be covered by this legislation and will have to disclose the information, even though on an individual basis it will not be considered to have the clout to make an impact on public policy. Yet the large companies in this country will have the budget to hire full-time employees to carry out lobbying, or government relations work, and will not be caught by this measure at all. I believe this is a gap in the proposal that must be considered.
I think it is clear that there is a sentiment in the House, which is reflected by the reference of this issue to a committee'
that more must be done to identify those people and the people for whom they work, whose job it is primarily to try to influence government policy and have an effect on administrative decisions. While this consensus is emerging, I do not think it necessarily means that those in the House who form part of that consensus believe that the concept of lobbying is necessarily wrong or harmful. It is part of a free and democratic society that individuals or groups, on their own or through people acting on their behalf, should have the right to petition government and Members of Parliament to express their views about government policy or government administrative decisions. I suppose it is also recognized that this concept, which I believe should be a legitimate part of the political process, can go off the rails, be the subject of abuse and the subject of what may be an improper influence on government policy and decisions. We need a better system in place to deal with this problem.
I think the report is very useful. I do not often commend the Government for very much, especially these days, but I think the Government should be commended for making the time available for this debate. I hope my comments have contributed, not only to the debate but toward working out a valid and effective system to deal with lobbying. It should be a system which recognizes the right of people to approach government. We should not create something so cumbersome and detailed that it may catch tens of thousands of people and subject them to sanctions, when all they are trying to do is carry out their democratic right of approaching Government, while allowing very large firms that may be in a position to have an impact on Government that should be disclosed, to escape completely from the purview of a system of disclosure in the registration of lobbyists.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   NON-SMOKERS' HEALTH ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from January 23, consideration of the motion of Ms. McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood) that Bill C-204, an Act to regulate smoking in the federal workplace and on common carriers and to amend the Hazardous Products Act in relation to cigarette advertising, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity
February 12, 1987

to speak today on this legislation. The whole thrust of this legislation, which is supported by the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, cancer societies and anti-smoking groups, is to create a smoke-free Canada by legislating smoking out of Canadian life. But have we forgotten the Charter of Rights, the freedom of choice, the right of the corner store to survive, where some 70 per cent of its income is from confections and cigarettes? Have we forgotten the rights of people to prosper, to work, to raise a family and to be proud? These are the rights of a group of people I would like to address today, the Canadian tobacco farmers. These are people who over generations have developed blow sand into soil and developed a healthy plant from a weed. In most cases they were immigrants who became the proudest of Canadians. No one faulted them back then. They received nothing but praise for their contribution to agriculture and to their country. Tobacco turned into a valuable commodity. Billions of dollars were made and billions of dollars were taxed but those billions of dollars were not for the farmer. Families from all over Canada came to work. Students paid their way through university working in the fields. Cigarette manufacturers developed empires. Wholesalers built businesses. Corner stores flourished, and vending machine operators haven't done badly either.
The industry employs some 62,000 people across Canada. Consumer spending provides over $6 billion to the Canadian economy. Federal and provincial Governments collect over $4 billion a year in taxes. But what about the farmer? He receives six cents out of a $3 package of cigarettes. We have now ascertained that smoking is a health risk. I do not think that finding is questioned any longer in Canada. However, we now have a group in society, once admired for their hard work, dedication, ingenuity, and perseverence, who have all of a sudden become outcasts. No one thought of this problem back then. Farms that at one time were worth $500,000 to $1 million cannot be sold. Their agricultural peers are downgrading these farmers. Society is shunning them. Governments are taxing and legislating them out of business.
In the tobacco growing areas of Canada we have bankruptcies, family breakdowns and suicides. What about those farmers? What about the 2,600 dedicated tobacco farmers in Canada? What does the legislation do for them?
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) is attempting to help. If it had not been for his intervention, the 1985 crop would not have been sold. He provided $90 million in advance crop payments last year, many times what had been provided in the past, and he will be providing $65 million this year. The capital gains exemption, fuel tax rebate and rural transition program are welcome moves.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) provided taxation to fund a REDUX program, some $30 million in last year's Budget. That was the first time the tobacco farmers' plight was ever recognized in a Budget Speech.
The Minister of Agriculture is announcing today the establishment of an alternate enterprise initiative program to
Non-Smokers' Health Act
assist diversification initiatives in the tobacco growing regions of Canada. It is a program to develop a co-operative approach towards increasing the production and marketing of alternate crops without causing significant disruption to existing Canadian primary production. This $15 million program will focus on the development of new crops, production technologies, marketing and processing opportunities. It is the first part of the $30 million tobacco diversification plan announced in the 1986 Budget. The results of discussions with the industry on the second part should be announced in the near future. I applaud this very positive step developed through co-operation at the federal grower level.
It is obvious that the inevitable is happening. The demand for this product is shrinking fast. Tobacco farmers have been told that their product is not wanted in Canada, but they are also being told, "We do not want you to export health risks to Third World developing nations either". Eighty-six per cent of Canadian tobacco exports go to developed nations headed by the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany. It is hard for the growers to understand why Canada will not support the export of a crop which some other country will then provide.
Alternate crops are being looked for, something to reduce the growers' dependency on tobacco. But what can one grow on 100 acres which will pay a $500,000 mortgage? At the present time much work is being done to research alternate crops, alternate crop processing, and alternate crop marketing. However, time and money are needed and these are two commodities of which they are short. Even with the assistance provided to date by the Government, more than was ever provided in the past, some 500 to 700 farmers will be forced out of tobacco production this year.
I offer, Mr. Speaker, first, that as long as Canadians smoke, let Canadian tobacco farmers have the right to grow the tobacco. Second, as long as we, society, the provinces, and the federal Government, tax and legislate tobacco farmers out of business, we have an obligation to assist them. If my colleague the Minister of Finance does anything with the special tax levied on cigarettes last year to assist these people, I hope he uses it to increase the funds available. Let us provide the tobacco farmers the needed time and money to alter their direction. Sure, they demonstrated and protested. They want to survive. They want the right to do what they trained for and what they do well. I ask my colleagues if they would not fight for their business, home, family, and future if the whole country seemed to be against them? I urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to consider this one comment; do not turn your backs on this group of proud Canadians.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-204, which is a Bill to regulate smoking in the federal workplace and on common carriers and to amend the Hazardous Products Act in relation to cigarette advertising.

February 12, 1987
Non-Smokers' Health Act
The Hon. Member who just spoke did so very eloquently. He spoke about the needs and, as he sees it, the rights of those 62,000 people who grow, manufacture and retail tobacco in Canada and whose product generates $4 billion in taxes.


T.A. Bud Bradley: The rights of the growers.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The Hon. Member spoke about the rights in terms of the Charter. He does not give any clear direction as to what he wants to do with respect to the rights of people who are being adversely affected by the tobacco industry and the use of its products. He has suggested that there is an absolute right to grow, manufacture, sell and smoke tobacco. In fact, he seems to claim that that is a Charter right. I question his reasoning on that point. I do not think there is any such absolute right. There are very few absolute rights.
If we are to talk about rights I say that the right to health is much more fundamental than the right to be a tobacco farmer, a Member of Parliament, or the driver of an automobile which emits lead into the air which pollutes our cities. There are many activities which can be challenged for their effect on other people. The right to pursue them cannot be considered absolute without considering their effects on other people.
The whole reason for the campaign in the matter of smoking is the effect on other people. We are told about the number of people and the number of dollars reflected on the part of growers, manufacturers and retailers. But what has to be weighed against that is the fact that tobacco is associated with more deaths and illnesses than any other single product in our country. Some 35,000 people in Canada die every year from tobacco-related diseases. That is more than the number of people who produce tobacco. I hope the Hon. Member does not seriously argue that 26,000 farmers should be allowed to contribute to the deaths of 35,000 people. By making such an absolute claim to rights that is the logic he is putting forward.
The ill effects of tobacco smoke are a preventable health hazard. Some health hazards are not preventable but this one is. It is estimated that tobacco smoking costs the country $8 billion per year. That is to say, when we reckon the cost of health care for tobacco-related illnesses, the cost of supporting the disabled, the cost with respect to fire damage and the cost of forgone income, it has been estimated that it costs $8 billion to our economy. In other words, that figure is double the $4 billion that we collect in taxes. This figure does not include the costs of pensions to families of smokers who die prematurely from heart disease, lung cancer or emphysema.
I commend the work of the Government in using our tax dollars to assist tobacco farmers to move out of the tobacco industry. Likewise, there should be a move to assist the tobacco manufacturers and the retailers to move into other industries. However, I do not think that the manufacturers are very poor. I think they are among the biggest corporations, if not the biggest monopolies, on this continent, judging by the number of other industries, such as the beer industry, which they buy. I think there may be a need to help the growers, which is being done. There may be a need to help the retailers
if, in fact, two-thirds of a retailer's business depends on tobacco, which is not exactly what the Hon. Member said but what he implied. To suggest, and he left this open, that we should hold back on the protection of the health of people is not a reasonable way to balance rights, the right to health against the right to follow a particular occupation which has, unfortunately, been shown to be harmful to other people's health.
What we have here is not a total prohibition of tobacco in Canada. It is not, as the previous speaker said, a smoke-free Canada Bill. It is a Bill to protect people in the workplace against being compelled to breathe other people's tobacco smoke. We have found through the medical evidence accumulated over the years that being compelled to breathe other people's tobacco smoke, second-hand smoke, is a very serious health hazard and causes sickness and even death. We are asking that workers be protected against that within the jurisdiction of the Government.
What we have is a Bill that would provide the following:
No person shall smoke in any office or other work space provided by an employer, outside of a designated smoking room.
That does not mean no smoking. It means no smoking except where it is permitted by the employer. People who want to avoid smoke are then enabled to avoid it. People have the right to breathe non-poisonous air to the extent that removing tobacco smoke removes a very serious poison from the air.
The Bill goes on in Clause 5 to provide the same freedom on an aircraft, a ship, a railway car or motor vehicle operated under federal transportation legislation. That is to say if people choose to travel they should be able to do so without breathing poison from tobacco smoke.
If the tobacco industry can find customers elsewhere through legitimate means, not poisoning their neighbours at work or in travel, this Bill does not hinder it. However, the Bill does restrict the tobacco industry in one further way. It is in a way with which I have full sympathy. It would amend the Hazardous Products Act so as to forbid the advertising of tobacco. This is done for a very serious reason. Quite evidently, the advertising of tobacco is aimed primarily at young people. Older people are quitting smoking. The tobacco industry is busy recruiting young and inexperienced people by putting up very expensive and alluring ads in the knowledge that if they get a person hooked young he or she will find it very, very difficult to kick the habit in later years. A general finding is that the younger a person is hooked, the harder it is to kick the habit. The advertising is aimed at making it look fashionable, chic, smart and healthy. The industry has even tried to use some of the sports events to advertise the glories of smoking tobacco. That would be restricted by this Bill, and so it should. In other words, people should not be taking advantage, particularly of those who have not reached years of discretion, which is what is being done with tobacco advertising.
February 12, 1987

I hope that the Members of this House will consider the strong support that this Bill is receiving. The Hon. Member who just spoke referred to that, obviously with the feeling that that represents a danger to the tobacco industry. We should be more concerned in recognizing that that widespread support represents the possibility of health to tobacco smokers, the possibility that at last there will be the necessary public support to enable people to participate in the public life of this country, including work and travel, without being forced to inhale somebody else's tobacco smoke poison. It is a fundamental right that we are asking for all people of Canada to have the choice. If they wish to go away on their own and poison themselves with tobacco, it will still be possible. We are only asking that they should not be compelled to do that so that other people can make money. As it turns out, there are better ways to earn a living.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-204. Before I rose, I had a problem listening to the debate because of the hacking of a colleague who sits near me-obviously he has a smoker's cough. I wish to do everything that I can to encourage people not to smoke.
Second-Hand Smoke Hurts was the theme for this year's National Non-smoking Week January 15 to 21. National Non-smoking Week is an annual event whereby a nation-wide public education campaign on non-smoking is co-ordinated by the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health. Recent evidence has confirmed that it is not just active smokers who are harmed by tobacco smoke. Damage to health is suffered by all who share indoor space with smokers, particularly when they are exposed to smoke for long periods of time in the home, at work, or in the office. For example, a recent report from the United States' Surgeon General indicated that one hour spent by non-smokers in a smoke-filled room may be equivalent to someone smoking Five to 30 cigarettes.
Tobacco smoke exposure presents serious special risks for our children. Parents can play a major role in ensuring a healthy smoke-free environment for their children and themselves by quitting smoking, if they smoke. This will also help to provide a positive non-smoking model for children which will encourage them to remain non-smokers as they grow to adulthood.
A survey conducted in the Department of National Health and Welfare a year ago indicated' that more than half of the employees were bothered by smoke and, indeed, an overwhelming majority of those, including the smokers, supported the implementation of a smoking restriction policy. A departmental policy has been in effect for one year and has been enthusiastically received by Health and Welfare employees across the country.
In Canada as a whole, over 65 per cent of the workforce today are non-smokers. Increasingly they are asking for a working environment that protects them from the health
Non-Smokers' Health Act
hazards associated with involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke. Fortunately, a rapidly growing number of employers in both the public and the private sector are responding by taking steps to restrict smoking at their work sites. While these actions are a good start, much remains to be done to ensure that all Canadian employees enjoy a smoke-free workplace. Restriction of smoking in the workplace is one necessary component of a comprehensive approach to the problem of second-hand smoke.
This past November at an international conference on health promotion, held here in Ottawa, the discussion document Achieving Health for All: A Framework for Health Promotion was released by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). In that paper the need to create environments that are conducive to health through the advocacy and implementation of healthy public policy was emphasized.
A good example of this strategy is the work at the federal level to develop an integrated tobacco policy. All aspects of tobacco product marketing, including such matters as stronger more visible health warning labels and the possibility of restricting cigarette advertising, are under active review by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister has met with both Canadian tobacco manufacturers and health groups to discuss ways to strengthen or replace the existing voluntary code. This week on the news I heard that The Toronto Star is no longer accepting cigarette advertising. I believe this makes the fourth paper in Canada to do so.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) is studying options to reduce any economic hardships suffered by tobacco growers in response to the slowly declining demand for tobacco products. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has proposed federal regulations which would eliminate passenger smoking on commercial flights that last less than two hours. Public comment is being invited on these proposed regulations. Air Canada and several regional air carriers, as well as VIA Rail and several inter-city bus lines have recently acted to provide greater protection from tobacco smoke in their vehicles. I am optimistic that transportation companies will be making even greater efforts in this direction in the near future.
Municipal governments have succeeded in limiting smoking in public places in about 40 cities in Canada. Quebec has become the first to enact provincial legislation concerning tobacco smoke in public places. Other initiatives of groups such as the Canadian Heart Foundation, whose smoke-free space for kids program has encouraged more than 400 schools to become smoke-free, should be commended. The work of the Canadian Lung Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, and the Non-smokers' Rights Association in the promotion of smoke-free workplaces should also be applauded. The Canadian Council on Smoking and Health should be congratulated for bringing the important issue of second-hand smoke into public view during National Non-smoking Week.
A major national collaborative initiative to combat smoking is the national program to reduce tobacco use. This is a joint

February 12, 1987
Non-Smokers' Health Act
effort of the federal, provincial, and territorial governments together with several major non-government oranizations, including the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health, the Canadian Public Health Association, Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Lung Association, Canadian Cancer Society, Canadian Heart Foundation, and Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada. The goals of this program which was launched in October, 1985 are to protect the health and the rights of non-smokers; to help non-smokers stay smoke-free; and to help smokers wishing to quit smoking to do so. These are laudable goals. The first stage of the program involved the launching of the youth oriented national advertising and promotion campaign using the theme, "Break free for a new generation of non-smokers".
A recent article in The Ottawa Citizen suggested that this campaign is not having an effect among Canadian youth. In fact, this campaign has achieved considerable success in reaching 12 to 17 year olds, the age group where major decisions are being made. Some of the findings from the 1986 evaluation of the campaign, which were misinterpreted in this article, indicate that 57 per cent of 12 to 17 year olds were aware of the campaign, which at the time of the survey had only run for about eight weeks. Furthermore, the intended messages of the campaign were clearly evident to youth who interpreted it as saying, stop smoking now, don't smoke at all, and don't start to smoke. The guide has been produced for use by program members and others at the local level regarding ways in which groups can become active in promoting this program. Initial steps have also been taken to involve the private sector in promoting the non-smoking message.
I got your signal, Mr. Speaker, and realize I only have 25 minutes more so I will hasten to conclude.
I am very pleased by the positive response from many of the companies approached to date, and I urge other businesses to get involved in their communities. Other program activities include the identification of several education programs ranging from prevention of smoking among teenage youth to smoking reduction in the workplace.
In conclusion, the attainment of a smoke-free Canada will be a triumph of Canadians everywhere. I am confident that by the afore-mentioned initiatives and other related activities this goal can be achieved.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity this afternoon to speak to Bill C-204. If I appear to be out of breath it is because I got here at the last minute to join in the debate, but I did want to take a few minutes to express support for Bill C-204 introduced by the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).

I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) for the effort she is putting into this Bill. I said this to the Hon. Member before, but I know she has, shall I say, much less tolerance for smokers than perhaps some other people do. She has a religious fervour of sorts for this measure she is proposing and I congratulate her for that. I know there are several of us who do not smoke and have smoke puffed in our face quite often. Sometimes, because we are in elected office, we do not dare say anything, but we should on occasion. I know that is not the case with the Hon. Member, so I am told by several people. I will not describe the kinds of meetings where she has told people to butt out, but I am sure some of her colleagues could attest to the fact there have been such occasions. At least so I have heard.
The important point is that we often hear on radio commercials dealing with this subject. I was listening to CKO this morning and there was a commercial from Health and Welfare Canada. It was very well done. It said that if someone was burning trash in their backyard and polluting everyone else, the municipal authorities would fine them. That is quite true in a number of localities. If someone was poisoning the air for someone else we would not put up with it. Yet at the same time many people are smoking and causing that kind of harm to themselves and others around them. The interesting point is that the commercial ends by saying "It is enough to take your breath away". Obviously it is, literally speaking.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I quit smoking myself about fifteen years ago and I can assure you that the presence of smoke around us is becoming ever more difficult to accept despite the fact that some of us do tolerate it, even though we should not. Statistics make it obvious that similar efforts must be made to reduce the number of opportunities people have to smoke, not only to protect their own health but, more important still, the health of people around them.

There are some diseases which are almost totally and exclusively caused by the fact that people smoke. That is very unfortunate. On the other hand, some people tell us that Governments need the revenue which the tax on cigarette tobacco produces. With those who subscribe to that theory I have to disagree profoundly. First, the health costs associated with the diseases caused by smoking far exceed any revenue the Government could ever hope to generate from the tobacco tax. That has been proven so many times that we need not go into it now in further detail. The other fact is that there is really no price to be put on good health. All of us know, particularly those of us who have had family members get sick, or have been sick ourselves, that we do not know how well we are until we are sick. Then we know just how precious health is. Unfortunately, too many people who smoke do not always give this fact the kind of attention they should.
February 12, 1987

I have a few small concerns about the Bill. They do not in any way take away from my intention of supporting its general thrust. But I bring to the attention of the House that in my view there should be some sort of exception clauses to make it more realistic and suitable to circumstances. Let us say we are talking about a building with a designated smoking room. Perhaps because of the size of certain buildings there should be some exceptions. I am thinking that it would not be necessary to have a separate smoking area for two people working in an airplane hangar or something like that. There has to be some kind of practical adjustment to make the Bill a little more functional. I want to caution Members of the House that it may require some mild amendments like that, friendly amendments, but that does not take away from the fact that I intend to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would rather not use up all the time allocated to me today. One of the reasons is that I hope this Bill will be given second reading and sent to a parliamentary committee so that we might make a detailed study and propose certain amendments which might be necessary. In any event, I know other Members intend to express their views on this measure. Therefore I yield the floor to other Members who, I am sure, will also make an important contribution to this debate.


Mrs. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, cigarette smoking is emerging as a major public health concern for many Canadians probably because smoking can cause illness and shorten our life expectancy and because it is a habit that is difficult to break and becomes addictive. The public is also increasingly aware of the fact that smoking is not only bad for smokers. The latest research has shown that smoke produced by others, known as sidestream or secondary smoke, may be the cause of low birth weight and fetal injury. It can also cause respiratory illness in children and lung cancer in subjects exposed to sidestream smoke for long periods, for instance in the home or at work. As a result of this growing awareness of the effects of smoking, the public wants action to be taken on several issues, including cigarette advertising and exposure to sidestream smoke in public vehicles and at work.
The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) is to be commended for presenting a Bill whose purpose is to reduce tobacco consumption and protect the public from involuntary exposure to sidestream smoke. I support the spirit and the intent of the Bill, and I would like to start with a few comments on tobacco advertising.
The Association for Non-Smokers' Rights has documented numerous violations of the voluntary code that manufacturers of tobacco products have agreed to apply to advertising and promotion, including advertising tobacco products on billboards and in stores within less than 200 metres of school property.
In 1986, the "Tempo" cigarette ad campaign aroused public concern. In my view, the campaign was clearly directed at
Non-Smokers' Health Act
recruiting new smokers among Canadian youth, thus violating the voluntary advertising code. The new 15-cigarette Export A pack has also been cause for concern, since the cheaper price makes this product more accessible to young Canadians. Unfortunately, in a declining tobacco market we can expect an increasing number of these questionable advertising and promotion campaigns.
For some time there has been concern that a product as dangerous as tobacco should a subject of promotion and advertizing campaigns, especially since the ad associate tobacco with a healthy, exciting and glamorous lifestyle, make tobacco products more attractive to young people and generally legitimize tobacco use. In fact, a number of Canadian magazines and newspapers, including the Kingston Whig-Standard, the Brockville Recorder and Times, the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star, are now refusing to accept tobacco advertising because they believe it is unethical to advertise a product that is so clearly hazardous and addictive, and they are to be commended for doing so.
Although voluntary commitments by the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council have been successful in limiting tobacco advertising to a certain extent and have also included the printing of health warnings on cigarette packs and reducing tar and carbon monoxide levels produced by cigarettes, the violations of the Code prove that the self-regulating approach is not ideal. Without provisions for enforcement, manufacturers are under no obligation whatsoever to observe this Code.
The federal Government has met with representatives of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council with a view to taking stronger action on tobacco advertising and promotion. Of special concern are the issues of lifestyle advertising and promotion aimed at teenagers and adults, the effectiveness of current health warnings, and the effectiveness of current compliance procedures. A number of options are being considered for restricting tobacco advertising, and I am very sure, Mr. Speaker, that this Government will be introducing further measures in the near future.
Another major point is involuntary exposure to cigarette smoke. I think we should realize that more and more, Canadians are demanding smoke-free areas, especially at work, in public vehicles and other public places such as restaurants, hospitals and retail stores.
A good many public and private sector initiatives designed to establish smoke-free areas have made it possible to protect the Canadian public against the hazards of involuntary contact with the tobacco smoke of other people. We should all commend the efforts of Canadians who have taken such initiatives.
As to smoking on public transport systems, several major bus transport companies, including Greyhound, Gray Coach, Voyageur, Canadian Coach and Pacific Coach, now offer services reserved for non-smokers only on many routes. As well, most major cities have banned smoking on municipal

February 12, 1987
Non-Smokers' Health Act
buses. Carriers such as Air Maritime, NorOntair, Time Air and Air Nova have flights for non-smokers and, for a few months now, most Air Canada Rapidair flights within the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle have been reserved for nonsmokers. Last month, in response to public pressure, VIA Rail management decided to run cars for non-smokers on all but five of their routes, and all their coaches also have seats reserved for non-smokers. Better still, recently the Minister of Transport announced a proposed regulation to ban smoking on Canadian aircraft on domestic and transborder flights of two hours or less. Mr. Speaker, this measure marks another decisive phase in a series of concerted efforts to protect the travelling public against the hazards of involuntary exposure to sidestream smoke.
More and more employers are establishing policies which restrict smoking in the workplace. For example, Boeing, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and a variety of other companies have adopted as their goal a smoke-free workplace and are moving in that direction. Bata Industries Limited has already entirely banned smoking on the job. Municipalities such as the City of Ottawa are banning smoking at work stations and are working toward a complete ban on smoking in the workplace.
According to the Institute for Occupational Smoking Policy at the University of Seattle, employers who allow smoking in the workplace have much higher costs related to employee absenteeism, property damage and maintenance. Employees who smoke spend 6 per cent of their working hours on this ritual. Obviously, every employee who does not smoke on the job is a definite asset to the employer. Banning smoking from the workplace has other advantages as well. Some employers have observed that in addition to protecting their employees against the hazards of tobacco smoke and saving on maintenance costs, the restrictions imposed on smokers at work greatly improved employee morale.
Mr. Speaker, most major cities in Canada impose smoking restrictions in other public areas and gradually pass ever stricter by-laws in this respect.
This year Quebec enacted legislation to restrict smoking in various public places. It is a first at the provincial level. The Quebec legislation has two major aspects. First, smoking is banned or restricted to certain designated areas in government offices, hospitals, schools, public transit vehicles, and many other public buildings. Second, municipalities are authorized to pass additional smoking by-laws applicable to places under their jurisdiction. Quite a few municipal councils have taken this opportunity to adopt even stricter regulations which were not covered under the earlier provisions so as to restrict smoking in public areas, particularly places of work.
The federal administration has also made a special effort to designate rooms where smoking is prohibited in its offices. Considering that employee exposure to the tobacco smoke of others is not in keeping with the over-all objective, which is to maintain a healthy working climate, and that employees want to have much stiffer restrictions in that respect, a number of
Departments have decided to restrict smoking in their offices. Among others I might mention the Office of the Auditor General, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, the Department of National Health and Welfare, Statistics Canada, the National Research Council, the National Library Catalogue Division, and the Public Service Commission. In addition, the National Joint Council, an employer-union organization, is now considering various ways to strengthen the policy governing the use of tobacco in federal workplaces. For example, Mr. Speaker, last week Petro-Canada management announced smoking restrictions in their offices and facilities. Thus the federal administration is making an effort to promote smoke-free workplaces and leading the way for employers who have not yet implemented this kind of policy.
Although the federal Government has already established policies and programs aimed at restricting tobacco use, we can expect to see much more comprehensive measures to protect the public against exposure to the smoke of others, as well as restrictions concerning current tobacco marketing practices.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to say two things. First, I fully support Bill C-204 and I commend the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) for daring to be the first elected representative in the history of this place to deal with a danger which has affected us throughout the history of Parliament. Second, let me assure my esteemed colleague and true friend in connection with this and other causes we share that I do not enter this debate as a result of her friendly but forceful persuasion. I support this Bill because of long, bitter and sometimes hilarious experience in the more than a quarter of a century it has taken me to realize that smoking can indeed be dangerous to one's health.
It will come as no staggering surprise to anyone who knows me that I enjoy a pipe. Hon. Members rarely see me without a pipe, unlit but always at hand, even in this Chamber, as a kind of crutch, a prop, or, as the late, great Prime Minister John Diefenbaker used to kid me, "It gives you that something, that sense of sobriety which isn't always present in the journalistic community". The former Right Hon. Member for Prince Albert was correct way back then.
As a Member of this House, I admit that the pipe may provide an image, though not for the reasons Mr. Diefenbaker mentioned. Indeed, as the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood notes with horror at the commencement of every Standing and Special Parliamentary Committee on which we have participated, my pipe sits in an ashtray at the Chairperson's place and invariably she remarks, "You're not going to light that, are you, Mr. Chairman?" The answer has always been no and the answer here, Lynn, is also no.
I guess this is as good a time as any to recount an experience I had in a previous workplace, an experience which seemed very funny at the time to the distinguished person involved but
February 12, 1987

which almost proved to be extremely hazardous to me. The people involved in this episode were my friend, Bob Hull, former Ottawa Bureau Chief of the Windsor Star, myself, then President of the Parliamentary Press Gallery and Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. The workplace on this occasion in 1973 was Government House. The occasion was an official reception for the media in honour of Her Majesty given by Governor General Roland Michener in the tent room at Rideau Hall.
As executives of the Press Gallery, Mr. Hull and I were among the first to be presented to the Queen and His Excellency and then we were ushered into the elaborately decorated tent room for drinks and chatter until the Royal Party joined us. Bob Hull and I were advised to station ourselves right next to the entrance to the tent room in order to welcome Her Majesty and escort her informally through the growing throng of media people.
Both Bob Hull and I were pipe smokers and, as we lit up and a waiter handed us our drinks, Bob only had time to get out the question, "Now that we've gone through the receiving line and we're all here informally, are we allowed to smoke and drink in front of the Queen? I mean, what do we do if she-" and she did, Mr. Speaker.
Out of the corner of my eye, I was aware that an elegant, diminutive lady, all by herself, was approaching the two of us. Three things happened all at once. I stiffened and whispered to Bob, "Stash it, she's here". My friend found a nearby shelf with an ashtray and was able to dispose of his pipe and his drink in time to fold his hands neatly and say hello to Her Majesty. I was not so lucky. I plunged my pipe into my coat pocket and whipped back my right arm with the drink in my hand and said, without looking, "Here, somebody please take this". Not exactly composed, I then proceeded to join in the conversation with Her Majesty. Suddenly she started to laugh. I know that the British and especially the Royal family have a great sense of humour but I did not recall having said anything that funny or looking particularly funny. And then I smelled it. By now the Queen was in near hysterics as aides materialized out of nowhere asking her if something was wrong. Queen Elizabeth could only get out, through her uncontrollable giggling, "No, not with me, but sir," she said to me, "will you please take that infernal pipe out of your pocket or you'll burn the whole place down". I stabbed my finger into the smouldering pipe bowl, and as the ever-present aide rushed up with a damp napkin to stifle the rising column of smoke, the Queen continued, "And now, look who you just handed your drink to". There was His Excellency, Governor General Roland Michener, standing with two drinks, his and mine, muttering, "It's all right, Geoff, I'm just a supernumerary around here when Her Majesty is around. It's just part of the job".
So many millions of Canadians regard smoking as just part of the job. A number of colleagues from all sides of the House have presented detailed and valid reasons to persuade Canadians to change the way that smoking is considered to be just part of the job.
Non-Smokers' Health Act
The first charge that could be levelled at such a piece of legislation as Bill C-204 is that it tramples on the rights of individuals. In my view, this Bill is not interventionist and does not trample on the rights of individuals. The statistics fly in the face of any such argument. Statistics show that smoking is the greatest cause of preventable death. Smoking accounts for almost 20 per cent of Canadian deaths, killing more Canadians than alcohol, car accidents, violence, drugs, suicides and poisoning combined. Smoking kills 32,000 Canadians every year. Four million Canadians will die from the effects of tobacco products and each smoker will die, on average, eight years prematurely.
There is a growing awareness of the dangers of second-hand smoke. A recent Health and Welfare study found that one in five Canadians has a serious medical condition which is aggravated by second-hand smoke. Other Hon. Members have mentioned that those who have asthma, emphysema or heart disease, will substantiate that. Health and Welfare Canada also estimated that 1,050 non-smoking Canadians will die from lung cancer, perhaps one-half of them from second-hand smoke.
With regard to the economic costs of smoking, Health and Welfare Canada estimated that the cost associated with smoking is twice as high as the revenue from tobacco taxation. The Health and Welfare study pointed out that the economic costs of tobacco use in terms of mortality, disability, fire damage, direct hospitalization and physicians' fees is $7.12 billion versus $4.2 billion in economic revenue from the tobacco industry.
By debating this kind of legislation, we are not trampling on people's lives. We are trying to address the case of the majority. Two-thirds of Canadians do not smoke. We are only trying to minimize the effects of smoking on both smokers and non-smokers. I do not think any Canadian would object to that as long as the legislation allows those who wish to smoke to do so. No one is trying to remove that right from those individuals because we do live in a free society.
There is no question that passage of Bill C-204 and the proclamation of this law will be an immensely important signal to employers and to Canadians generally that an official new awareness has dawned concerning smoking in the workplace. The legislation will only be meaningful in the long run in the ways it is followed up in practice.
I wonder if the historic measure the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood is hoping to pass in the very near future will not have achieved its main purpose initially by being simply a clear signal, a symbol, a beacon, if you wish, that employers had better start recognizing the problem of the non-smoker. Sometimes it does not take the force of law to bring about that kind of change, at least in some areas. We have found a simple answer in the Standing Committee on Secretary of State. We simply removed all ashtrays permanently. People do not mind stepping out into the hall to light up. I do not notice fewer passengers flying the one or two-hour non-smoking Air Canada flights since Transport Canada

February 12, 1987
Adjournment Debate
brought in that regulation. Smoking on an aircraft has always been a crazy hazard anyway. Now I sense that folks are beginning to appreciate a smoke-free environment in the air.
In short, and in conclusion, the idea of a smoke-free environment is seeping into the minds of walking smoke stacks such as those we find in this very Chamber. Moments before entering the House I saw my colleague, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), sitting all alone in the huge, leather-chaired lobby of the Confederation Building puffing away on his cigarette. He had just decreed a no-smoking rule in his office and had to abide by it with his lonely vigil of the sixth floor of the Confederation Building. If my friend from Western Arctic can respect other's wishes in this workplace, anyone can.
Again, I commend the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood for presenting a basically sound Bill, one that I will be happy to support when this historic measure is brought to a vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2) this order shall be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday on February 6, 1987, I stated before the House my concern about the NDP's funding sources. In raising this issue in the House, I referred to a 123-page judgment of the Ontario Supreme Court, handed down on July 7, 1986 by Mr. Justice John White.
In his judgment, Judge White of the Ontario Supreme Court referred to representations that were made before the Court at the request of a teacher at a college in Haileybury, Mr. Mervyn Lavigne. Mr. Lavigne's employer was deducting from his salary the union dues payable by all college employees, in accordance with the Rand formula.
The Rand formula obliges employees who decline membership in the union to pay the same dues as union members. The complainant in this case, Mr. Lavigne, did not object to the Rand formula as such but, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he objected to the fact that part of his
dues was not used exclusively for union business but for other purposes, including, and that is what is at issue today, contributions to the NDP. Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that the NDP gets a significant part of its funds from the unions.
Mr. Lavigne and his counsel argued the case before the Ontario Supreme Court and were able to prove to the satisfaction of the judge that under our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, unions could not use funds raised in this way from Canadian workers for purposes other than union business.
Mr. Speaker, considering that as a result of the decision by Judge White of the Supreme Court of Ontario, the NDP finds itself in a rather uneasy situation with respect to fund-raising, and also considering that this case will probably go to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of Canada, I want to ask today, on the floor of this House, that every Member of the NDP cease to use union funds contributed by Canadian workers to support their party's finances.
To be more specific, Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that the NDP pay back to the unions the funds they have in their treasury at this time, but I think party officials would be showing their good faith if they put in trust the funds derived from the contributions referred to in the decision by the Supreme Court of Ontario. These amounts should be held in trust, first to protect our workers, and second, to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
If the leader of the socialist party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), really wants to be honest and to maintain the reputation for clarity and credibility he wants for his Party, he should immediately explain his position and that of all his colleagues as concerns this illegal use of the money contributed by our workers. What will the socialist party do about this matter?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw a parallel between this issue and the fact that, when Canadians, and more particularly Quebecers, they put a deposit on an item which they plan to purchase later from a retail store, our laws require that this deposit be put in trust by the store, even if it is a national chain, to ensure that the consumer is protected. I would like to point out that the retailers comply with this legal requirement and respect Canadian consumers.
Will the socialist party, which, by its own definition, presents itself as a party devoted first and foremost to respect for the consumer, now have the honesty, the straightforwardness and the strength to comply with the ruling of Mr. Justice White of the Supreme Court of Ontario in the Lavigne case and to put the contributions of workers in a trust fund, and most important, not to receive additional amounts from this now contested source? We shall see in coming days what the members of the socialist party do to comply with this principle and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to remedy this situation. You can be assured, Mr. Speaker, that if they refuse to clarify their poisition before the Canadian
February 12, 1987

people and this House, we shall draw the inevitable conclusions and propose appropriate action.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the Hon. Member is important indeed. If the Members of the New Democratic Party are following the debate, perhaps they could themselves give their support to a reform of the current system of political party funding, and even consider my colleague's suggestion.
As the Hon. Member very well knows, the Government does not have the statutory authority needed to require labour unions to deposit the dues collected into a trust account. Only the courts may require that. Perhaps Canadian workers could ask that the percentage of their union dues that goes to a political party be deposited into such a trust account, until the courts have ruled on the issue that has been referred to them in Quebec.


REVENUE CANADA-WORD PROCESSING WORK. (B) DEPARTMENT'S SECURITY MEASURES
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am rising as a result of a question that I asked of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay). It concerned reports in the Winnipeg newspapers that Revenue Canada was considering an experiment in contracting out word processing work that, in the opinion of the employees of the Tax Data Centre in Winnipeg, was confidential in nature. They brought this to my attention and the attention of the media. I met with them on Friday, February 6, at which time I learned about the Department's plans to experiment with this contracting out.
Subsequent to some attention being paid to this issue in The Winnipeg Free Press, particularly, there were reports that the Department backed down on its plan to experiment with contracting out. I asked the Minister to confirm that this was the case, which he did. It is a case where, at least in part, one received the answer one was hoping for. In this case, the Department had second thoughts about this kind of experiment. The official reason given was because of the effect on employee morale and the obvious degree to which this experiment was upsetting current employees of Revenue Canada.
I agree with that sentiment. I was dismayed to see that Revenue Canada would not only consider contracting out this kind of work, but would even entertain the idea.
I also raised the question of enhanced security measures at Revenue Canada. It is well known as a result of recent events, including the recent incident in Toronto involving microfiche, that there has been concern about security at Revenue Canada. I do not fault the Government for its concern, but I understand the concern of employees that the new policy, which I understand has been implemented, involves checks on
Adjournment Debate
elements of their personal lives about which they obviously feel sensitive.
There is a question of widespread fingerprinting, credit checks, as well as background searches for criminal records and other histories. If these checks must be done, they should be carried out with a great deal of sensitivity, particularly when one considers that many of these employees have worked for Revenue Canada from 10 to 20 years or more. They are concerned that any information that might be gathered in the course of these reliability checks could in fact be used against them when seeking a promotion or other appointments.
It is when they are appointed or promoted to a new position that these checks will come into force. It would be ironic-and I think this is one of the things we are concerned about-if a reliable employee for 10 or 20 years did have something in their past which, according to the new security guidelines, made them a risk, when we already know from their work history they are not, their chances then for promotion or for continuing employment are put at risk. That should not be so because of something which obviously has not had an effect on their reliability and on their trustworthiness as employees. Therefore, I can certainly understand, in the kind of example I have given, about the kind of concern employees may have.
We should also be concerned, even if there is an element of necessity to it whenever Governments feel they have to go to these kinds of measures, which are unprecedented really, to tighten up security. It is certainly regrettable that these kinds of things even have to be thought about. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary, or whoever is responding for the Minister, might also indicate on behalf of the Government whether this is part of a larger plan to have this kind of reliability or security check done in all government Departments.
There was also some concern expressed by the Public Service Alliance local with which I met that this was the beginning of a larger plan to do this in all government Departments. If that is the case, what we are looking at is "Big Brother". I know it is 1987, but 1984 is still the symbol of that Orwellian world we all want to avoid.
I would think it would be a Conservative Government, most of all, those who have raised concerns in the past about big Governments and Governments knowing everything there is to know about people, which ought to be more sensitive than perhaps previous Liberal Governments about that kind of information gathering, about widespread fingerprinting and about the kinds of things about which I think the Public Service Alliance people are so rightly concerned.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his comments. I am sure he knows, as I do, that the Minister takes his comments very seriously. The Hon. Member raised two questions during Question Period on

February 12, 1987
Adjournment Debate
February 11. I will deal with the first question which concerned the proposal by Revenue Canada to review the feasibility of contracting out some word processing functions. The Hon. Member expressed concern that sensitive and confidential taxpayer information would be placed in jeopardy. First, as stated by the Minister, and referred to by the Hon. Member, as a result of further internal review and departmental investigation, the Department is not proceeding with the pilot projects. Second, no plans would have proceeded unless it could be assured that security of taxpayer information is maintained.
In his supplementary, the Hon. Member expressed concern about the Department's change in personnel security screening procedures which include fingerprinting, criminal record checks and credit checks. Revenue Canada has not departed from the government security policy. On the contrary, Revenue Canada fully supports the Government's policy, which was issued in June of 1986. It was the first Department to implement this new policy concerning personnel screening.
The purpose of the Treasury Board policy is to prescribe a security system for the Government of Canada which will effectively protect classified information and other assets sensitive to the national interests from unauthorized disclosure, destruction, removal, modification, or interruption. The policy is also intended to prescribe safeguards for other valuable assets and sensitive information such as tax returns. This is particularly important to Revenue Canada as its declaration of taxpayers' rights states that taxpayers: " have a special right that personal and financial information you provide to National Revenue Taxation will be used only for purposes allowed by law".
Because of the importance of confidentiality concerning taxpayer information, Revenue Canada decided to implement the new policy at an early date. This early implementation did follow consultation between Treasury Board and all Departments and between Taxation and the taxation component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Taxation employees
were then provided with information concerning the personnel screening part of the Government's security policy.
This program requires all candidates appointed from outside the Department, as well as current employees, when they are promoted, transferred, seconded or assigned positions for more than six months, to be subject to a basic or an enhanced reliability check. This screening program does not apply to employees in their current jobs.
A basic reliability check includes verification of personal data, educational and professional qualifications, and employment, as well as a name check of criminal records. An enhanced reliability check, valid for five years, requires a credit check and a fingerprint check in addition to the elements of a basic reliability check. The type of reliability check or security clearance required for a given position is based upon the level of sensitive information to which the position provides access, and the degree of that access as determined by departmental management. Any information obtained through this process is kept in the strictest confidence by the Department's security directorate.
It should be clear that this policy is not intended to be unfair to any employee. If a reliability check contains any adverse information, the employee will be given an opportunity to explain. If employees are denied an appointment as a result of a reliability check, they may use the current grievance process. A fair balance will be struck between the need to assure the Canadian public that their confidential tax information is protected by loyal and trustworthy staff and the desire to recognize the rights of employees.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.17 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, February 13, 1987